Part 7 Strand 7 Discourse and argumentation in

Part 7 Strand 7 Discourse and argumentation in science education

Co-editors: Maria Andrée & Maria Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre

Strand 7

Discourse and argumentation in science education

CONTENTS

Chapter 112

Title & Authors Introduction to Strand 7

Page 928

Maria Andrée & Maria Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre 113

Applying argumentation analysis on university chemistry student’s experiment reports

931

Xiaomei Yan & Sibel Erduran 114

Investigating the effect of instruction through argumentation on science teacher candidates’ opinions

943

Ali Yigit Kutluca & Abdullah Aydin 115

Using the ALCESTE software for analysis of arguments

951

Ana Elisa Montebelli Motta, Caio Castro Freire & Marcelo Tadeu Motokane 116

Meaning making with gestures and structural representation media in pre-service teaching

958

Arcelino Bezerra da Silva-Neto, Marcelo Giordan & Alexandre Aizawa 117

The ecosystem concept in the environmental education researches: Meanings related to sustainability

966

Danilo Seithi Kato, Luiz Marcelo de Carvalho & Clarice Sumi Kawasaki 118

Epistemic practices in reports with fit or anomalous data to a known model

973

Maíra Batistoni e Silva & Silvia L. Frateschi Trivelato 119

Raising questions, and trying to answer them: A study of students' use of second-hand data

979

Luiz Gustavo Franco Silveira & Danusa Munford 120

The meanings of the word “ecosystem” in popular science blogs Cristiane Contin & Marcelo Tadeu Motokane

991

Strand 7

Chapter 121


Title & Authors Instructional strategies for teaching primary students to construct arguments with rebuttals

Page 997

Shinichi Kamiyama, Tomokazu Yamamoto, Etsuji Yamaguchi, Miki Sakamoto, Keita Muratsu & Shigenori Inagaki 122

Students’ decision-making on issues of sustainability – beyond rational choice theory

1004

Hannes Sander & Dietmar Höttecke 123

The contributions of communicative action theory to reflect the political and ethical discursive formation in the science education

1012

Adriana Bortoletto & Washington Luiz Pacheco de Carvalho 124

Pre-service primary teachers’ perceptions and understanding of argumentation in science

1018

Carolina Martín & Sibel Erduran 125

Scaffolding guided inquiry-based chemistry education at an inclusive school

1030

Dominic Klika & Simone Abels 126

Human decision-making: intuition and reflection in decisionmaking processes

1038

Arne Dittmer, Jürgen Menthe, Dietmar Höttecke & Ulrich Gebhard 127

The effects of epistemological beliefs and prior-knowledge on the construction of arguments Andreani Baytelman, Kalypso Iordanou & Costas Constantinou

1047

Strand 7


INTRODUCTION TO STRAND 7 ARGUMENTATION AND DISCOURSE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION Research on argumentation in Science Education is relatively recent. It began about twenty years ago, at the time of ESERA’s launching at the Leeds conference in 1995. The first symposium about argumentation in a science education conference was held at the Chicago NARST meeting in 1997, and included papers from Kelly and Chen, Druker, and JiménezAleixandre, Bugallo and Duschl, which in the next years were among the first published studies on argumentation. In these two decades argumentation has become a successful line, both in the number of published papers and in their high impact. Argumentation may be characterized in a range of ways. The most influential in science education are argumentation as justification, in other words the evaluation of knowledge claims in the light of available evidence, and argumentation as persuasion of an audience (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008). Recently there has been a shift, from considering argumentation primarily as a type of discourse, towards framing it in scientific practices. The second is an approach coherent with the consideration of science as a set of scientific practices (Osborne, 2014). The United States National Research Council framework for science education, published in 2012, views the activity of science comprising three spheres: investigating, evaluating and developing explanations. From these, evaluating is characterized as involving selecting appropriate evidence, contrasting explanations against available evidence, comparing alternative explanations and critiquing them, or constructing arguments from evidence. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Crujeiras (in press) argue that these three spheres have a correspondence with the three scientific competencies from the PISA 2015 draft framework (OECD, 2013). Argumentation studies, thus, have relevance both for theoretical approaches, and for policy, curriculum and classroom practice. They have been also influential in the acknowledgement of the role of discourse and discursive practices in the construction of scientific knowledge. The content of argumentation studies in science education has evolved during these years, from a focus on students’ argumentation and its quality to the design of learning environments and teacher education programs in order to support argumentation. There are recent perspectives addressing understudied dimensions of argumentation, such as the relationship between conceptual knowledge and arguments, the role of criticism, or attention to non-structural features of argumentation. McDonald and Kelly (2012) acknowledge the potential of argumentation to engage students in scientific practices, however, they point out the limitations of focusing almost solely on argumentation in student discourse. They suggest investigating scientific sense making as a broader perspective on science discourse practices. From this brief overview, we turn on to the papers included in the eProceedings. The papers on discourse and argumentation In this eProceedings there are fifteen contributions to strand 7, discourse and argumentation in science education, most of them concerned with argumentation. They cover science education practices from primary school to pre-service teacher education, and can be distributed in four themes. Teaching and learning argumentation – It is the major theme among the papers, including what instructional strategies may contribute to developing students’ argumentation. Both Kamiyama et al. and Kutluca study the effectiveness of intervention about teaching practices. Kamiyama et al. have developed instructional strategies for teaching primary students to 928

Strand 7


construct arguments with rebuttals, to introduce these strategies in primary science lessons and to study their overall effectiveness. Kutluca and Aydin, study the effect of two different teaching strategies (labelled normal constructivist and argumentative) on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of argumentation in science teaching. There are also naturalistic studies about student argumentation in different educational contexts. Silveira and Munford study how 3rd graders use second-hand evidence to answer their own questions and how the teacher orchestrates the use of evidence to answer them. Yan studies students’ oral and written argumentation in tertiary chemistry laboratory education. Baytelman, Iordanou and Constantinou investigate how undergraduate education students' epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge about controversial socio-scientific issues might affect the arguments that they construct. The study by Martin Gamez and Erduran focuses on pre-service primary teachers’ perceptions and understanding of argumentation in science. Silva and Trivelato bring together argumentation with the notion of discursive epistemic practices to study the students’ epistemic practice when they work with fit or anomalous data to an explanatory model of biological dynamic population. The rationale was to engage students in the social dimensions of production, communication and evaluation of scientific knowledge. Methodology for analyzing argumentation and decision-making – A second theme concerns the analysis of argumentation and decision-making. Motta, Freire and Motokane have developed a methodology for complementing Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (the most used analytical tools to investigate argumentation). The rationale for developing it is that the Toulmin framework primarily is an instrument for structural analysis that cannot be used to assess the content of arguments or their production context. The authors therefore suggest the use of the ALCESTE software as a complementary tool for analysis of arguments. Theoretical issues concerning argumentation and decision-making – The third theme of how argumentation and decision-making can be theorized is closely related to the topic of methodology. Two papers (Sander & Höttecke; Dittmer, Menthe, Höttecke, & Gebhard) from the ESERA symposium on ’Old and new perspectives on decision making in science teaching’ contribute to the theorizing of how people make decisions in real-life. A startingpoint for both papers is a critique of rational choice theory and assumptions that students’ decision-making on issues of sustainability may be described and analyzed from a perspective of rationality. Drawing on results from psychological and sociological research, Sander and Höttecke argue that habitus as well as intuitions and emotions are essential to take into account in a person’s judgment and decision-making. Dittmer et al. argue for a biographyoriented understanding of decision-making in science education and science education research. Their model builds on the social-intuitionist model of moral judgment from Haidt, Bourdieu’s theory of practice and Kollers’ philosophy of education. Another contribution to the theorizing of argumentation and processes of student learning through participating in a debate is Bortoletto and de Carvalho, which draws on contributions of communicative action theory to reflect the political and ethical discursive formation in the science education. Science and science teaching as discursive is the fourth theme. Klika and Abels’ study relates more generally to questions of meaning-making and inclusion in science education, by looking at how a chemistry teacher scaffolds students’ learning in different teaching settings; it seeks to explicate detailed and latent patterns in verbal and non-verbal teaching practices that have consequences for achieving an inclusive school system. The papers by Kato, de Carvalho and Kawasaki, and Contin and Motokane concern science subject matters as discursive constructs. Kato et al. carry out a dialogic analysis of the meaning attributed to the concept of ecosystem in environmental education research papers. Their goal is to discuss dialogic aspects of language and the possibilities to identify implications for the teaching of sustainability. Contin and Motokane carry out a Bakhtinian content analysis of what meanings is attributed to the word ecosystem in popular science blogs in Brazil in order to consider 929

Strand 7


potential applications for ecology education. In sum, the contributions to the ESERA 2015 strand on argumentation and discourse add to the understanding of the roles and potentials of argumentation teaching practices at all levels of education. Whereas some of papers contribute to the mapping of teaching and learning argumentation, several are concerned with advancing the theory and methodology for studying argumentation in science education practices. Key issues concern how to conceptualize argumentation in more multifaceted ways that take into account both how people make decisions in real life and how science concepts per se are discursive constructs. Maria Andrée & María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

REFERENCES Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Crujeiras, B. (in press). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In: B. Akpan, & K. Taber (Eds.) Science Education: An International Comprehensive Course Companion. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (in press). 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. McDonald, S., & Kelly, G. (2011). Beyond argumentation: sense-making discourse in the science classroom. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 265–281). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2013). PISA 2015 Draft science framework. Paris: Author. Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.

930

Strand 7


APPLYING ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS ON UNIVERSITY CHEMISTRY STUDENT’S EXPERIMENT REPORTS Xiaomei Yan¹and Sibel Erduran² ¹Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK ²Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland Abstract: Previous research on tertiary chemistry laboratory education suggests that ideas developed during lectures do not appear to be reinforced in the parallel laboratory work. Argumentation has been recognized its key role in linking theory and evidence. Therefore, this study applied argumentation analysis on university chemistry students’ experiment reports. The empirical study conducted in the 2nd year chemistry laboratory course in one English university. 31 students’ experiment reports were collected in total. In order to explore the features of arguments in this research, methodological challenges of analysing arguments were attended. The specific analytical framework was developed to explore the chemistry specific features of written arguments. The framework combined the multiple coding based on TAP (Erduran, et al, 2004) and epistemic levels (Kelly and Takao, 2002). This analytical framework examined the both the structural features of individual arguments and epistemic features of overall data interpretation process in students’ reports. The finding suggests that the connections between empirical data and chemistry theories were built within written arguments. In particular, the TAP-coded arguments suggest the chemistry specific features of argument structures. The elements of ‘warrant’ and ‘backing’ are associated with micro-level chemical mechanism; while the element of ‘qualifier’ is associated with the experiment conditions in this study. The structural analysis of the written arguments indicate the micro-level mechanism (theories learnt in lectures) and the macro- level phenomenon (empirical data collected in the laboratory) were connected through the students’ experiment reports. The epistemic features of data interpretations in students’ reports show that the integrated structures and some insufficiencies of justifications of data interpretations. The findings of this study implies for further study on domain-specific argumentation in tertiary science education and also contributes to the methodological discussions on argumentation analysis. Keywords: argumentation, tertiary chemistry education, practical education

1 INTRODUCTION Writing experiment reports, usually as the post-laboratory activity, is emphasized by researchers for different purposes (Domin, 2007). As one type of scientific writing, writing experiment re-

931

Strand 7


ports is a discipline-specific task, which enhances students' epistemological constructs (Kelly &Takao, 2002), engages students in scientific reasoning (Kelly & Bazerman, 2003), promotes learning in the laboratory course (Carter, Ferzli, & Wiebe, 2007), as well as connects between inquiry and knowledge (Grimberg & Hand, 2009). In order to achieve these roles in learning, the essence of argumentation is involved (Reid & Shah, 2007). However, in the review of science laboratory education in secondary schools, coordination between experimental evidence collected in the laboratory and theory learnt in the lectures has been found to be challenging to the students (Hostein & Lunetta, 2003). And there were few research in the literature addressed the issues of argumentation in tertiary chemistry laboratory education. In response, this study applied argumentation analysis on students’ experiment reports in one chemistry laboratory course in one English university.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF ARGUMENTATION As the literature in science education suggests, there is a gap between how students coordinate data and theory (e.g., Berland & Reiser, 2009; Walker & Sampson, 2013). The advocators of argumentation have claimed that theory and evidence are linked through argumentation (e.g., Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Author 2, et al, 2002). In response, this study explores the coordination of data and theory in the arguments collected in this study. Moreover, within the literature of argumentation, there is emerging focus on domain-specific argumentation (e.g., Duschl & Osborne, 2002). The domain-specific argumentation focuses on context of which arguments were generated and its impact on the features of the argumentation (e.g., Bricker & Bell, 2008; Klahr, et al, 1993). With the growing interests in domain-specific philosophy of science, the distinct philosophy of chemistry has been distinguished from the traditional views of reductionism in the nature of science (e.g., Erduran, 2007). In response, this study aimed to explore chemistry-specific features of argumentation. Furthermore, in order to explore the features of arguments, the analytical frameworks in the literature are reviewed. The existing frameworks in analysing arguments are developed for different contexts and research purposes (Clark, et al, 2007). Therefore, the specific analytical frameworks were developed for this study to analyse the arguments in tertiary practical chemistry education.

3. DESIGN AND PROCEDURE 3.1 Aims In summary, the specific research aims for this study are:  To develop appropriate analytical frameworks for written arguments;  To explore what are the argumentative features of written arguments in tertiary chemistry laboratory.

3.2 Context This paper is derived from a PhD study with 2nd year chemistry students in laboratory for one term in one English university. There were four groups of students (there are 4 students in each

932

Strand 7


group) participated in the study. There are also demonstrators and tutors involved in the laboratory, assuming the roles of assessment, support and supervision. This paper focuses on features of argumentation involved in students’ experiment reports.

3.3 Data collection and analysis The students were required to produce experiment reports for certain experiments they conducted in laboratory. Adopted formative assessment measures, the students were asked to submit draft reports first to tutors, and then submit the modified final reports according to tutors’ feedbacks on their drafts, as well as their reflections on the improvements. As shown in Table 1, there were 31 reports collected from 16 students in total regarding three different experiments. (There were one student’s draft report missing). Table 1. Summary of the collected students’ experiment reports Groups of students

Number of students 4

Collected Draft Reports 3

Collected Final reports 4

Group 1 Group 2

4

4

4

Group 3

4

4

4

Group 4

4

4

4

total

16

15

16

Reported experiments

Synthesis and Analysis of Molybdenum and Chromium Carbonyl Complexes (Metal’s) The Wittig Reaction – Forming 1- (tert-butyl)-4styrylbenzene (Wittig’s) Determination of the Critical Micelle Concentration and Mean Aggrigation Number of Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (Micelle’s) The Wittig Reaction – Forming 1- (tert-butyl)-4styrylbenzene (Wittig’s) 31 reports in total

This study explores both the structural features of individual arguments and nature of justification within the overall data interpretation process in the students’ reports. The argumentative analysis of students’ reports was focused on sections of ‘discussion’ and ‘conclusion’.

4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS This study aimed to explore the discipline – specific and context-dependent features of arguments. However, analysing arguments is recognised as a challenge in the field of science education (e.g., Erduran, 2008). Therefore, both the methodological findings of analysing arguments and content findings of chemistry- specific features of written arguments are discussed in this paper. .

4.1 Argumentation analysis of chemistry experiment reports The process of analysing arguments faced several challenges of selecting and implication of appropriate analytical frameworks. As Clark and colleagues (Clark, et al, 2007) reviewed, there are

933

Strand 7


various frameworks developed for different contexts and research purposes on analysing arguments in science education. This study critically reviewed the available analytical frameworks on the basis of the aim of producing written arguments and the specific foci on argumentation in this study. Due to the context of laboratory course, the aim of producing arguments in students’ experiment reports is at applications of theories to interpreting the empirical data. The specific foci were placed on both 1) the coordination of data and theory and 2) the evaluation of experiment design and procedures in students’ experiment reports. The literature on argumentation also emphasized the coherent and sufficient data interpretation within students’ reports. Based on the nature of the arguments in students’ experiment reports, the analytical frameworks designed for similar aims and foci on argumentation were selected from the research literature on argumentation analysis (e.g., Rapanta, et al, 2013; Sampson & Clark, 2008). Pilot data analysis was conducted on students’ experiment reports with the chosen analytical frameworks. It was found that the components of TAP allow the interested argumentative features to be explored and presented. But TAP could not explore the overall picture of the discourse in the reports and the connections between each individual arguments. The limitation of TAP-based models leads to the considerations of the model proposed by Kelly & Takao (2002) which focuses on exploring the epistemic structures of students’ experiment reports. Kelly & Takao (2002)’s model focuses on exploring the epistemic structures of students’ experiment reports, which enables the explorations of the important connections and interactions among the parts and whole of students’ data interpretation discourse. These interactions across the paragraphs and chapters of the reports are important argumentative features of the experiment reports (Kelly & Takao, 2002). However, the pilot analysis found that Kelly and Takao (2002)’s scheme focused on the epistemic levels of propositions and their vertical relations between levels; but could not explore the different argumentative functions of propositions within same levels. The students’ critical considerations regarding the experiment processes could not be explored by Kelly and Takao’s (2002) model. Acknowledging the limitation of this epistemic model, it was proposed to combine this model with the modified TAP multiple coding categories, in order to complement each other in the analysis of students’ reports. Instead of analysing the individual propositions, the identified arguments represented by TAP structures were mapped into different epistemic levels.

4.1.1 Analysis of students’ experiment reports with the combined analytical framework This study aimed to explore both the structural features of individual arguments and nature of justification within the overall data interpretation process in the students’ reports. One new framework was developed on the basis of epistemic level in Kelly & Takao (2002)’s paper to complement the multiple coding categories derived from the research in Erduran, et al., (2004). The multiple coding categories based on TAP described the specific features of individual arguments; while the epistemic levels explored the functions of individual arguments (data reference, descriptions of chemical features or general chemistry theories) contributing to the overall discourse of data interpretation. The detailed process of analysis is summarized in the following steps:

934

Strand 7


1) The analysis starts from mapping out the epistemic structure of data interpretation in each experiment. In Kelly & Takao (2002)’s framework, the epistemic levels are based on the generality of the propositions used in geography experiments, ranging from level 1 of the direct description of the empirical data to Level 6 of the general theory at most abstract level. The epistemic levels in this study adopted Kelly & Takao (2002)’s idea of generality onto the arguments in chemistry experiment reports. The development of epistemic levels was also based on the features of chemistry experiment reports, suggested by literature (e.g., Carter, et al, 2007; Grimberg & Hand, 2009; Reid & Shah, 2007). In particular, three epistemic levels were drawn for chemistry reports in this study, including the descriptions and interpretation of the empirical data, explanations of the analysis of the data in terms of their chemical features, and the theoretical statement of the conclusions/findings. The epistemic maps for each experiment were presented in Table 2. Identifying the epistemic structures of each experiment also helps to identify the substantive claims for individual arguments within each student’s report. Table 2. Definition of epistemic levels for analysis of students' chemistry reports Experiment of Metal

Level 3

General chemistry theories

Level 2

Describe chemistry features

Level 1

Identify chemical with Explicit reference to data

Experiment of Wittig

The isomerism of the complex and the ligand’s π donor or acceptor ability affect the number and wavelength of the carbonyl stretching frequencies Comparing the carbonyl stretching frequencies and the number of carbonyl peaks: between different types of isomerism and the ligand’s π donor or acceptor ability Identify the types of isomerism based on: the carbonyl stretching frequencies the number of carbonyl peaks, According to the information presented in the literature the ligand in the spectrochemical series

The stability of transition state decide the E/Z type

Experiment of Micelle The relation between CMC and the formation of micelles

HMNR data (via coupling) decide the E/Z type Melting point also helps to decide the E/Z type Low yield issues

The relation between formation of micelle and concentration of SDS The error analysis

Color changes tell the reaction processes and reaction type IR and spectra data used to determine the isomerism TLC monitored reaction progress

The graphical interpretation of results in method 1 and method 2, of N and CMC, as well as errors

2) Secondly, with the overall epistemic map in mind, the individual arguments from the relevant sections (‘Results’, ‘Discussions’ and ‘Conclusions’) of the reports are identified. These arguments are coded by TAP components. Nevertheless, there were challenges of coding arguments with TAP due to the lack of clarifications of TAP components of arguments (e.g., Duschl, 2008; Erduran, et al, 2004; Kelly, et al, 1998; Kulatunga, et al, 2013). Erduran and her colleagues (Erduran, et al 2004) in their study of

935

Strand 7


analysing arguments in science classes especially discussed and developed practical ways of using TAP. In this study, their ideas of identifying unit of argument and working definitions of TAP components were adopted. Whenever one different claim was identified, one individual argument was identified. In other words, an argument was determined by the presence/absence of a new claim which was different from the original. Therefore, the subsequent arguments with individual claim, as the example argument, were separated from the main argument. 3) Thirdly, the multiple coding categories of arguments based on the structural features of the TAP components are developed. All the individual arguments were categorized into different types of structures according to the existence of TAP components in the arguments. In this study, the types of arguments were developed in Table 3. The average percentage of each type appeared in all the arguments was calculated. The average percentage of different types of arguments appeared in each epistemic level was also calculated. Table 3. Definition and examples of modified TAP multiple coding scheme Type I

Structures CD/CW

Definitions Include 2 argumentative elements

II

CWD

Include 3 argumentative elements

III

CWWD/CW BD

Include 4 argumentative elements (in particular, With claim, data and multiple warrants or with warrant and backing)

Examples In fac- [Mo(CO)3(L)3] there should be two carbonyl stretching frequencies8 [claim] and this corresponds with the data collected for the compounds synthesised in 3 and 4 [data] (Source: argument 11: group1, Alice, Metal’s 1 st draft)

IV

CWRD/CW QD

Include 4 argumentative elements (in particular, With claim, data, warrant and Rebuttal OR Qualifier

There were four FTI carbonyl frequencies at 2015 cm-1, 1905cm-1, 1878cm-1 and 1830cm-1 as shown in Figure 3 [data] which indicates that the molecule is a cis isomer (see Table 1). [claim] The complex is cis because the ligand-2, 2’-bipyridine, is a bidendate ligand. [warrant] (Source: argument 1: group1, Emily, Metal, Final) A yield of 10.7% was achieved, which is a relatively low yield. [data] There are many factors that have caused this, [claim] with the main being the reflux not going to completion.[warrant1] However it could also be attributed to loss of product during the solvent removal step or the recrystallisation step.[warrant 2] (Source: argument 2: group2, Andy, Wittig1st draft) The C-O stretching frequency is an indication of the strength of the -bond10 and electron richness of the metal11. [backing] The typical CO stretching frequency for CO gas occurs at approximately 2143cm-1. 6, 11 .[warrant] The carbonyl frequencies produced from cis[Mo(CO)4(bpy)] (Figure 3) are all at a lower frequency than free CO gas.[data] This shows that the C=O bond is weaker in the complex as a result of bonding to the metal. [claim] The structure of cis[Mo(CO)4(bpy)] is shown below:[backing] (Source: argument 2: group1, Emily, Metal, Final) Figure 5 shows the spectrum of trans-[Cr(CO)2(dppe)2]. [data]We would have expected one peak for the product trans-[Cr(CO)2(dppe)2]. [warrant?] However, there are two peaks (at 1850cm-1 and 1722cm-1) [data] which suggest that not all of the substrates reacted.[claim] This may have been because the mixture wasn’t thoroughly mixed, wasn’t allowed to reactant for long enough or some other error [Qualifier] (Source: argument 4: group1, Emily, metal 1st draft)

936

Strand 7

V


CDWBQ/C DWBR/CD WQR

Include 5 argumentative elements

From the computation study on Gauss-View (Table 2) carbonyl stretching frequencies differ according to whether the complex is cis or trans.[warrant] Cis-[Cr(CO)2(dppe)2] 4 has a higher CO stretching frequency than trans-[Cr(CO)2(dppe)2] 5.[data] However the CO bond length is the same and the number of dppe ligands is the same in both complexes,[data] so this is not a result of CO back bonding.[rebuttal] This difference in carbonyl stretching frequency must be a result of the isomerism of the complex. [Claim] (Source: argument 7: group1, Alice, Metal’s 1st final) The cis -[Cr(CO)2(dppe)2]+ 13 and trans- [Cr(CO)2(dppe)2]+ 14 also have different CO stretches from each other and from their uncharged species;[Data] the charge of the metal would be expected to change the CO stretching frequency [qualifier]. This data suggests isomerism of the complex continues to contribute to the difference in CO stretching frequency [claim] regardless of how the charge on the metal is changed [qualifier] because the wavelength of the carbonyl stretch has changed by the same amount on each isomer.[Rebuttal- data] This is to be anticipated because the charge on each complex has changed by an equal amount [data] so should make an equal amount of difference to the CO stretching frequency. [warrant] (Source: argument 8: group1, Alice, Metal’s 1st final)

4) Fourthly, each individual argument, represented by their TAP components is mapped into the epistemic diagram for each report (as in Table 4). Table 4: an example of epistemic map of extracted arguments in one student’s report of Experiment Metal (the dotted arrow indicating implicit connections among the levels) Level 3

General propositions

Level 2

Describing chemistry features

Level 1

Identify chemical with Explicit reference to data

The isomerism of the complex and the ligand’s π donor or acceptor ability affect the number and wavelength of the carbonyl stretching frequencies Comparing the carbonyl stretching frequencies and the number of carbonyl peaks in each spectra for each synthesis between different types of isomerism and the ligand’s π donor or acceptor ability Based on the empirical data of “the carbonyl stretching frequencies and the number of carbonyl peaks in each spectra for each synthesis”, the types of isomerism were identified, According to “the information presented in the literature and the ligand in the spectrochemical series”,

[CDWQ (12)]

[CDWB(1)]

[CDWB(1)], [CDWB (3)], [CDW (5)], [CDWB (10)]

5) Fifthly, the quantified evaluation scheme of the epistemic map is applied on each student’s report. The sufficiency and coherence of arguments are explored across students’ reports.

4.2 Findings of argumentation analysis on students’ experiment reports

937

Strand 7


The argumentation analysis of the students’ experiment reports shows both the structural features of individual arguments and epistemic features of data interpretations. In particular, the coordination of data and theory is identified within the arguments.

4.2.1 Structural analysis of individual arguments The structural analysis of individual arguments extracted from students’ reports indicated a focus on two aspects: 1) the coordination of data and theory; 2) the evaluation of experiment design and procedures. The average percentages of each type of arguments across all the collected reports were shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Average scores across students' reports with TAP-based multiple coding scheme Figure 1 shows that there was few Type I (CD/CW) arguments. This indicates the majority of the arguments included basic argumentative elements: this is because all the other types of arguments, except in Type I, include data, claim and warrant. In particular, the integration of chemistry theories in arguments was usually associated with the ‘warrant’ and ‘backing’ in the arguments. The existence of ‘CWD’ in most arguments means that the interpretation (‘Claim’) of empirical data (‘Data’) is always justified by the chemistry theory (‘Warrant’). Therefore, most arguments produced by students were based on evidence and justified by relevant theories. Figure 1 also shows that most frequently used arguments were the type IV (Claim + data + warrant + Qualifier/ Rebuttal) in both drafts and finals of the students’ reports. Retraced with original reports, most of the ‘rebuttal’ and ‘qualifier’ appeared where the reflections of the experiment processes or the discussions of the improvement of the experiment appeared. For example, when the students discussed low yields of their experiments in reports, all the students used ‘qualifier’ in their arguments to discuss the limited conditions in the experiments and ‘rebuttal’ to discuss alternative methods to improve the yields. Therefore, the finding also indicated the students’ review of experiment design and conditions were associated with the ‘qualifier’ and ‘rebuttal’ in reports.

4.2.2 Structural features of arguments across the epistemic levels

938

Strand 7


The average percentages of different types of arguments that appear in the three epistemic levels1 were calculated and presented separately as below in draft and final reports. Figure 2 indicates the same trend in draft and final reports that there are simpler forms of arguments in the lower epistemic levels.

Figure 2: The average percentages of different types of arguments appeared across 3 epistemic levels on students' draft and final reports It is found that the structural features of individual arguments are agreed with different foci of epistemic levels within students’ reports. For example, Figure 2 shows the dramatic decrease of occurrences of Type II arguments in both draft and final reports in Level 2 and 3 compared to Level 1. This change indicated that more ‘backing’s were involved in the Level 2 arguments. In this study, it was found that the ‘backing’ was usually related to the chemistry theory and chemical micro-level mechanisms (e.g., the structures of molecules or dynamics of electrons). Therefore, the types of arguments included the structure of ‘CDWB’ involved the integration of evidence and theory. The focus of Level 2 arguments was to analyse the empirical data in order to show chemical features. Figure 2 also shows that all the arguments in Level 3 involved more complex structures than arguments in Level 1 and Level 2. In particular, the most used arguments in students’ draft reports were Type IV and Type V; while the most used arguments were Type V in final reports. Compared to Level 2 arguments, the component of ‘rebuttal’ and ‘qualifier’ (as appeared in Type IV and Type V) appeared more often. This finding suggests that when students critically discuss and reflect upon the process of experiments and results, ‘rebuttal’ and ‘qualifier’ were employed. Moreover, individual arguments were distributed across all the 3 epistemic levels in most reports (80%). There were two reports without level 3 arguments in their conclusion part and one report missed some level 2 arguments in its discussion part. Usually, the level 3 arguments could be found in the conclusion part in students’ experiment reports. In the two reports without level 3 arguments, the students failed to make general theoretical arguments about the reports; they instead, concentrated on the descriptions of collected empirical data. This finding echoes with the literature of tertiary chemistry experiment reports. For instance, in Walker & Sampson (2013)’s 1

The 3 epistemic levels are: 1) level 1, Identify chemical with explicit reference to data; level 2, describe chemistry features; level 3, general chemistry theories (see Table 2)

939

Strand 7


study on argumentation in university chemistry laboratories found that students tend to provide details about their methods or observations rather than using appropriate evidence to support their claim. Furthermore, most arguments were categorized into Level 1 and Level 2. Particularly, in Level 2, arguments connected the empirical data (macro-level phenomenon) described in Level 1 to the chemistry theories (micro-level mechanisms); and then contributed to Level 3 theoretical claims. Nevertheless, the distribution of arguments across the epistemic levels varied according to the experiments. In the experiment of “The Synthesis and Spectroscopic Characterisation of Metal Carbonyl Complexes” (Metal’s), most arguments were categorized into level 1 in all the maps; while the other experiments, “The Wittig Reaction – Forming 1- (tert-butyl)-4-styrylbenzene” (Wittig’s) and “Determination of the Critical Micelle Concentration and Mean Aggregation Number of Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate” (Micelle’s), the maps were more evenly distributed with arguments in level 1 and level 2. In order to further explore the coherence of arguments across epistemic levels within each experiment, the quantified criteria were employed (as described in section 4.3). The finding of this analysis is discussed in the following section.

4.2.3 Sufficiency and coherence of data interpretations in students’ reports The sufficiency of evidence and justifications, as well as coherence of arguments of the discourse in data interpretation, were evaluated on the basis of the epistemic maps of each report. The scores of sufficiency and coherency of arguments across epistemic levels were assigned for each report. The averages scores for both draft and final reports were calculated and illustrated in figure 3.

Figure 3: Average scores for students’ draft and final reports on the epistemic maps Figure 3 shows that the average score on the sufficiency of evidence and justifications across arguments in different epistemic levels was 2.14 in draft and 2.59 in final reports. There were two out of 15 draft reports which scored 1 for sufficiency, as there were important justifications missing from the students’ interpretations of the empirical data. Most draft reports (9 out of 15 draft reports) scored 2, which means insufficient evidence or justification in their interpretations of empirical data. Improvements were found in students’ final reports, as shown in Figure 3. Most

940

Strand 7


final reports (12 out of 16 reports) scored 3, which means there were sufficient evidence and justification included. In particular, it was found that more backings and more appropriate warrants were employed and sometimes the qualifiers were added in final reports. Figure 3 also shows the coherence of arguments across the epistemic levels within the data interpretations in students’ reports scored 2.38 in draft and 2.71 in final reports. The analysis shows there were explicit connections in most students’ reports between different epistemic levels of the arguments. Only two out of all draft and final reports scored point 1 due to their incomplete theoretical discussions. For all the rest of the reports, the theoretical discussion is integrated with the descriptions of the collected data. It seems to indicate that the individual arguments were well related to form an integrated interpretation of the collected data in most students’ reports.

5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS In response to the interests on argumentation for decades, this paper enriches the literature of argumentation in science education. The finding addresses the gap between experiment and theory which highlighted in the literature of science laboratory education (e.g., Author 2 and Villamanan, 2009; Walker & Sampson, 2013). The structural features of arguments indicates that the coordination of data and theory is achieved through the experiment reports. Moreover, the bridge between micro-level chemistry mechanisms and the macro-level observed experimental phenomenon and data are built through the TAP component of ‘backing’ and ‘warrant’ within the arguments. Therefore, the finding also supports the researchers’ argument that engagement with argumentative activities could result in better understanding of experiments (e.g., Simon, et al, 2006; Kuhn, & Udell, 2003).

5.1 Implication of analysing argumentation The specific methodological challenges of analysing arguments in science education were addressed. The implication of TAP addressed the specific methodological issues of identifying individual arguments and differentiating TAP components. Moreover, the findings of this study support the literature which argued TAP could explore discipline-specific arguments (e.g., Bricker & Bell, 2008; Clark & Sampson, 2007; Duschl & Osborne, 2002). The working definitions of TAP components on coding the arguments in students’ chemistry experiment reports were developed. It supports Clark et al’s (2007) review that discipline – specificity lies in the nature and validity of TAP components. In order to explore the complexity and integrity of the arguments in the interpretation and discussions of empirical data in the reports, the two frameworks, by Erduran, et al, (2004) and Kelly & Takao (2002), were combined. The finding suggests that this new framework bridged the gaps between analysis of individual arguments and overall structures of data interpretation in experiment reports. In particular, the developed framework sheds lights on the issues of quality and structure of arguments. As aforementioned, the students’ experiment reports are expected to show one coherent and sufficient discourse of data interpretations, composed by several arguments. In response, the developed framework evaluate the validity of justifications and evidence

941

Strand 7


across the individual arguments and lies at the overall level of data interpretations on students’ reports.

5.2 Implication of exploring domain-specific argumentation This paper expands the understanding of argumentation in the field of tertiary chemistry education, which addresses the researchers’ avocations for discipline-specific argumentation (e.g., Bricker & Bell, 2008; Klahr, Fay, & Dunbar, 1993). The conditions of how experiments conducted (including experiment designs and procedures) were specified in ‘qualifier’; the ‘rebuttal’ was usually associated with reflections of experiment design or discussions of alternative interpretations of the results. Moreover, the macro-level conclusions (including interpretations of collected data and observed phenomenon) were justified by micro-level chemistry mechanisms in ‘warrant/backing’ of arguments. These findings especially addressed the gap between microlevel and macro-level representations in chemistry (Gabel, 1999). Moreover, the findings in this study enrich the discussions of argumentation in tertiary chemistry laboratory education. For example, Walker & Sampson (2013) reviews the problems of students’ argumentation in tertiary chemistry laboratory. They have found it is not a problem that students cannot support ideas and challenge claims or viewpoint. The finding of this study supports their findings on students’ abilities of coordinating evidence and theories. Selected References Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287 - 312. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, pp. 39-72. Hostein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Educaton, 88, 28 – 54. Toumin, S., 1999. Knowledge as shared procedures. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki-Gitai, eds. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives: Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 53-64. Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to Argue and Arguing to Learn : ArgumentDriven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate Chemistry Students Learn How to Construct Arguments and Engage in Argumentation During a Laboratory Course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596.

942

Strand 7


INVESTIGATING THE EFFECT OF INSTRUCTION THROUGH ARGUMENTATION ON SCIENCE TEACHER CANDIDATES’ OPINIONS Ali Yigit Kutluca¹ and Abdullah Aydin² ¹ Kastamonu University, Faculty of Education, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Kastamonu 37100, Turkey ² Kastamonu University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Science, Kastamonu 37100, Turkey Abstract: In recent years, involving in the decision-making processes actively and making decisions more correctly and rationally related to scientific and socio-scientific issues have increased in importance of argumentation term in the science education. The aim of this study is to compare science teacher candidates that processing both argumentative and normal constructivist science instruction in terms of their perceptions and opinions on argumentation. For this purpose, totally 60 (52 female and 8 male) science teacher candidates in the experimental and comparison groups were involved in the two different instructional processes lasted for 8 weeks. While the group named as the experimental group was involved in the argumentation process, the others named as the comparison group was involved in the constructivist instruction process. Following to these instructional processes, the participants answered totally 6 questions in the written form which comprised of the characteristics such as “Science and its Characteristics, The Function of Science Education, The Role of Argumentation in Science, The Effect of the Process on Opinions about Science Education, The Relationship between the Nature of Science and Argumentation, and Argumentation Skill”. The obtained data from this study were analyzed by using inductive content analysis method. The data reached after the Implementation – Data Collection process revealed that the individuals involved in the argumentation process had fewer “Scientific Myths” than those in the other group, and gave more importance to raising individuals with developed reasoning skills who are qualified decision-makers and scientifically literates. The findings obtained in this study are discussed in the light of related literature. Keywords: Argumentation, Science Teacher Candidates, Opinions, Science Education

INTRODUCTION Argumentation has been regarded as a basic disciplinary aspect and a significant component of science teaching by most of the science educators, and during this process teachers are charged with major tasks (Kuhn, 2010; McNeill & Knight, 2013). Encouraging students’ participation in argumentation practices is of high importance for scientific literacy in terms of the development of their critical thinking skills and understanding of the nature of science as well as ensuring them to be qualified decision-makers (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000). Even though student-centered instruction is focused in the modern science education, the teacher factor constitutes prominent importance in these curricula and especially in encouraging students to the argumentation process (Zembal-Saul, 2009; Zohar, 2008). Argumentation may be efficient in gaining comprehended knowledge and argumentative skills to make decisions more easily and healthily related to socio-scientific and scientific issues (Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006). Furthermore, discussion environments framed by teachers for their students have importance in the sense of quality science education (McNeill, 2009). Therefore, many studies have been carried out in the literature, which highlight the significance of pre-service and in-service teacher trainings to promote argumentation (e.g., Simon & Maloney, 2006; Cook & Buck, 2013). The findings on the socio-scientific argumentation process in science education showed that an effective argumentation process is 943

Strand 7


possible due to the improvement of teachers’ perception of argumentation (e.g., Jho, Yoon, & Kim, 2014; Iordanou & Constantino, 2014; Herman, 2015). Nonetheless, of all these studies, the number of the investigations into the opinions of preservice science teachers following the argumentation process is very few. In one of these studies, Duschl and Osborne (2002) suggested teachers had important impacts on the argumentative template used by students during the process of argumentation. According to the results of studies by Von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne and Simon (2008) signifying the dissertation of teachers on a certain topic discussion, it was shown that teachers have a great impact on the argument pattern that students resort to during argumentation process. Sadler (2006) conducted a study aiming at examining the teacher candidates’ perceptions of argumentation and revealed that the teacher candidates regarded argumentation as a basic tool of science education and an effective pedagogical strategy to increase success. Within the light of a gap in the literature, the aim of this study is to compare the perceptions and opinions of science teacher candidates on argumentation who were involved in two differing processes as argumentative and constructivist science teaching.

METHODS Design of the study Single case study which is one of the qualitative research methods was employed in this study (Merriam, 1998). The case in this study is how the ideas of teacher candidates on argumentation change by depending on various instructional processes. Single case study may be used in order to determine what the socio-scientific argumentation means for the participants in the study (Creswell, 2008).

Participants Sixty science teacher candidates from the 3rd grade being educated during the fall semester in 2014-2015 academic year at the Department of Science and Technology Teaching, Faculty of Education, Kastamonu University in Turkey participated in the study. Science teacher candidates were from different regions of Turkey and have varying socio-economic background. Besides, participants were not participated in the argumentation process earlier. The information about the participants is given in Table 1; Table 1. Participants Groups

F

M

Total

Argumentation (Experimental) Constructivist Instruction (Comparison)

24 28

4 4

28 32 60

Data Collection Tool Question set form developed by Sadler (2006) and the completed adaptation were addressed to the teacher candidates participating in the study to determine their perceptions and opinions on the following socio-scientific argumentation and constructivist argumentation process. The form was submitted to two experts for their scrutiny to ensure the internal validity (Creswell, 2008). In order to detect whether the questions in the set both expressed the same thing to all participants and were neat and comprehensible and additively what level it served for the aim of the study, a pilot study was conducted with 6 different people (10% of the 944

Strand 7


totally 60 participants was taken as the criterion) and one pcs of these forms were controlled by another expert (Morse, 1991). The questions in the sets took their final form after the experts’ views and the pilot study. The characteristics of the questions in the sets are mentioned briefly in the following Table 2. Table 2. Characteristics of the Questions Questions Question1

Science and its Characteristics

Question2

The Function of Science Education

Question3

The Role of Argumentation in Science

Question4

The Impact of the Process on Opinions Regarding Science Education

Question5

The Relationship of Science and Argumentation

Question6

Argumentative Skills

Implementation - Data Collection Process In this study, the participants in the experimental and comparison groups were involved in two different instructional processes lasted for 8 weeks. While the group named as the experimental group was involved in the argumentation process, the one named as the comparison group was included in the process of constructivist instruction. Subsequent to these instructional processes, the same question set was addressed to both groups. The Implementation - Data Collection Process is defined in Table 3. Table 3. Implementation - Data Collection Process Weeks

Experimental Group

Comparison Group

1

Introducing the process and informing the individuals about the targets. Presentation on the Perspectives of Learning

Introducing the process and informing the individuals about the targets. Presentation on the Perspectives of Learning

2-7

Introducing Argumentation with all Aspects. Activities about Socioscientific Argumentation (Small and Large Group Discussions)

Doing classroom practices in groups of 4 people in accordance with the constructivist instruction strategies. Instruction through constructivist approach

8

Question Set (Data Collection)

Question Set (Data Collection)

Data Analysis The data collected in the research were analyzed by inductive content analysis method. This analysis method allows for identifying the notions lying beneath the data and the relations between these notions (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The answers of the participants to the questions in the question set on the following socio-scientific argumentation and constructivist argumentation process were compared densely in accordance with the target of 945

Strand 7


the research. The Coding Key was created with analytical assessment options. During this process named Perpetual Comparison Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the preparation of the coding key in order to ensure the reliability of the researches and sending it themes, one more researcher was involved in the practice conducted during this process. The betweencoder reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) which is supposed to be 70% for coding process is over 80% in this process. A limited part of the analyses made additionally was sent to an expert to provide external control and his ideas were taken into consideration.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The findings obtained in the study are presented under the headings according to the characteristics of the questions.

Science and its Characteristics When the answers given to this question are examined, it was seen that the individuals in the comparison group, unlike those in the experimental group, stated the disciplines such as Physics and Chemistry worked through an “evidence” mechanism by focusing on concrete proofs, yet in disciplines like Philosophy and Psychology, abstract evidence was on the more foreground. The findings obtained related to this question may be seen comparatively in Table 4. Table 4. Science and its Characteristics Experimental Group

Comparison Group

The Changeable Nature of Scientific Knowledge The Nature and Aspects of Science

Experimental Structure of Scientific Knowledge

Observations Deductions and Theoretical Headings

Scientific Knowledge is Subjective Socio-Cultural Structure of Scientific Knowledge Hypotheses turn into theories and theories turn into laws

Myths about the Nature of Science

Science and technology mean the same.

Scientific laws and similar claims are certainly true. There is a general and global scientific method. Evidence collected carefully result in absolute truth

The Function of Science The participants in the experimental group stated that science education is important for raising individuals both having developed reasoning skills and being scientifically literate and 946

Strand 7


decision-makers, and those in the comparison group indicated that it is important in view of teaching the scientific process skills for this question. The most significant difference between the answers of both groups was that experimental group emphasized more on the nature of science. “Science education has a prominent role in developing scientifically literate people which is a requirement for a modern society. Science education is important for students’ understanding its nature rather than learning the knowledge.” “We teach students to behave like scientists in science education. We enable them to discuss and develop their reasoning skills. We teach students knowledge is changeable and that the society is also involved in science.”

The Role of Argumentation in Science Both groups suggested argumentation has a role in obtaining knowledge in science. The ones in the experimental group highlighted the concept of “the nature of science” more. “Considering that science changes continually and is subjective, the role of argumentation in science outweighs greatly. It is because scientific knowledge may also be obtained through discussions as well as experiments and observations.”

The Effect of the Process on Opinions about Science Education A majority of the participants stated their opinions about science education changed positively after the 8-week long process. The findings may be seen clearly in Table 5. Table 5. The Effect of the Process on Opinions about Science Education Experimental Group Constructivist Science Education

Comparison Group Student-Centered Learning

Student-Centered Learning Learning by Doing The Changeable Nature of Science

The Nature and Aspects of Science

The Experimental Structure of Scientific Knowledge

(–)*

Scientific Knowledge is Subjective *It shows that they did not express any ideas about the nature and aspects of science

The Relationship between the Nature of Science and Argumentation It was detected that most of the participants in the comparison group left this question unanswered and did not make any comments. On the other hand, the individuals from the experimental group suggested “the nature of science” covered “argumentation” and these two concepts cooperate to obtain knowledge. “They are two concepts completing and covering each other. Science and argumentation are the formations based on discussion and cannot be considered independent. The nature of science has the feature of covering argumentation.”

Argumentation Skill When the arguments made by the participants in the experimental and comparison groups about the given knowledge claims are viewed, it was found out that those in the experimental 947

Strand 7


group were well ahead in view of the “argumentation skills” compared to the comparison group. Most of the arguments made by those in the comparison group could not go beyond “Claim and Data”. “I think Genetically Modified Foods should not be produced. I’m in favor of helping financially troubled countries instead of producing GMO. I’m against GMO.”

As for the arguments made by those in the experimental group were submitted generally in a grounded way. The argument components such as “Data-Reason-Supporting” were involved altogether in these arguments. “Embryonic stem cells must not be used. That is, stem cell studies must not be conducted using embryo. It must never be done for extinct creatures. Because embryo cell is a living thing and using it for such a study means murder. It is a living organism and has the right to live. The extinct creature has already stopped living. Ecological system wanted it to happen so. We do not have the right to annihilate a living thing in order to reanimate that extinct generation.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The aim of this study is to compare the perceptions and opinions of science teacher candidates on argumentation who were involved in two differing processes as argumentative and constructivist science teaching. For this purpose, participants in the experimental and comparison groups were involved in two different instructional processes lasted for 8 weeks. While the group named as the experimental group was involved in the argumentation process, the one named as the comparison group was included in the process of constructivist instruction. Following these instructional processes, the participants answered totally 6 questions in the written form. The data collected in the study were analyzed using inductive content analysis method. The findings obtained in this study reveal the participants in the experimental group emphasized more on “the nature and aspects of science”, yet had fewer “Scientific Myths” than those in the comparison group (McComass, 2002). The ones in the experimental group suggested argumentation had an important role in ensuring the changeable nature of scientific knowledge and moreover, the nature of science covered argumentation. These findings were not found in the comparison group. This result, as has been reached a consensus in the literature, confirms that the process of argumentation revealed the understandings about the nature of science (Bell & Linn, 2000; Cook & Buck, 2013). On changing the perspective in a different way, the participants in the experimental group stated science education was important in view of raising scientifically literate individuals and decision-makers possessing developed reasoning skills when compared to those in the comparison group. This result demonstrates the role of argumentation in modern science education (Driver et al., 2000). Finally, it was found out in the study that the participants in the experimental group made more well-grounded arguments than those in the other, and thus, their argumentation skills were higher. This result proves that the most significant factor to show the development of argumentation skill, as stated by Sadler and Fowler (2006), is grounding the arguments. It is possible to state the difference between the current skill development resulted from the instructional processes experienced by participants. In the light of these results obtained from the practices, it has been observed the argumentation process provided the benefits pedagogically to the teacher candidates (Sadler,

948

Strand 7


2006) and it has been suggested further studies should be conducted with more importance on this aspect of the issue.

REFERENCES Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. Cook, K. L. & Buck, G. A. (2013). Pre-service Teachers’ Understanding of the Nature of Science through Socio-scientific Inquiry. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 1-24. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.Science Education, 84, 287-312. Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Herman, B. C. (2015). The Influence of Global Warming Science Views and Sociocultural Factors on Willingness to Mitigate Global Warming. Science Education, 99, 1-38. Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57. Jho, H. Yoon H-G., & Kim, M. (2014). The Relationship of Science Knowledge, Attitude and Decision Making on Socio-scientific Issues: The Case Study of Students’ Debates on a Nuclear Power Plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23, 1131–1151 Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810824. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. McComas, W. F. (2002). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed), The nature of science in science education. Rationales and strategies (s. 53-70). Dordrehct: Kluwer Academic Publishers. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268 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, 936–972. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Morse, J. M. (1991). "Strategies for sampling." In Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue (JM Morse, Ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 127-145. Sadler, T. D. & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A Threshold Model of Content Knowledge Transfer for Socioscientific Argumentation. Science Education, 90,986-1004. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323–346. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260. Simon, S. & Maloney, J. (2006). Learning to teach ‘ideas and evidence’ in science: a study of school mentors and trainee teachers. School Science Review, 87(321), 75-82. 949

Strand 7


Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learnand learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates totheir scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.

950

Strand 7


USING THE ALCESTE SOFTWARE FOR ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS Ana Elisa Montebelli Motta, Caio Castro Freire and Marcelo Tadeu Motokane Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Languages of Ribeirão Preto, Biology Department, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. Abstract: Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) is one of the most used analytical tools to investigate argumentation in classroom. However, the Toulmin’s framework is an instrument for structural analysis and not to assess the content of arguments or their production context. In this study we suggest the use of the ALCESTE software as a complementary tool for analysis of arguments. We analyzed three collective and 45 individual texts produced by 1012 years old students from a public school in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. TAP was used for identifying arguments and their structural complexity. The content of these arguments was analyzed using the ALCESTE software. The more representative words and Elementary Context Units (ECU’s) present in the students’ arguments were grouped by the software into four classes. These classes allowed us to recognize four main discursive themes related to students’ argumentation and their frequency: (1) Field work (23%); (2) Economic interests (16%); (3) Importance of forests as habitats for species (30.5%) and (4) Air quality (30.5%). These themes showed us that only few students used empirical data or scientific knowledge to support their written arguments. The results corroborate our hypothesis on the potential of ALCESTE software as a good tool for evaluating the conceptual quality of arguments, which would not be possible using only a structural analysis. Keywords: argumentation, Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP), ALCESTE, classroom discourse, Science education.

INTRODUCTION Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) is one of the most used analytical tools in studies on argumentation in Science education (Erduran, 2007). In this proposal, the validity of an argument is related to its structure. According to Toumin's framework, there are three essential elements of an argument (Toulmin, 1958): (1) Claim: Assertion whose validity must be established. (2) Data: Evidence that supports the claim. (3) Warrant: Statement that provides a connection between data and claim. In more complex arguments some additional elements also can be found: (4) Backing: Statement related to a scientific theory (concepts, laws), in this way supporting the warrant. (5) Qualifier: Statement that specifies the conditions under which the claim is valid. (6) Rebuttal: Statement that specifies the conditions under which the claim is not valid. The relations between these elements are illustrated in the Figure 1.

951

Strand 7


DATA

so,

QUALIFIER

CLAIM

since WARRANT

unless REBUTTAL

on account of BACKING

Figure 1. Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP). Modified from Toulmin (1958). Capecchi & Carvalho (2000) emphasized that TAP help the students to understand the role of argumentation in scientific thinking, for example, showing to them the importance of the construction of scientific statements from data/evidence, scientific theories and concepts. However, some gaps need to be considered in an analysis only using Toulmin’s framework, for example: (i) structural elements frequently appear out of order in the arguments; (ii) warrants and backings can be implicit; (iii) the same statement can have a different meaning or a different function according to the context; (iv) speakers’ gestures are disregarded and (v) the dialogical nature of argumentation cannot be assessed on its totality. As we know, arguments and other discursive products are result of a collective process of construction, which is not covered by a structural analysis (Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000; Nascimento & Vieira, 2008). Thus, TAP has been criticized because its focus is in a more prescriptive characterization of argumentation (Erduran, 2007), presenting a restricted approach concerning the validity of arguments in terms of content or conceptual quality. The ALCESTE software (Analyse lexicale par context dún ensemble de segments de texte) was designed by Max Reinert in France in the 1970s. Currently, this software is an important tool of Humanities and Social Sciences frequently used to analyze written texts (e.g., literary texts, articles, documents) or transcripts (e.g., interviews, speeches, dialogues). The software distinguishes the vocabulary of a text (lexical content) in word classes, which represent different forms of a discourse about one subject. The assumption of ALCESTE is that different individuals have different points of view shared by a social group at a specific moment. These different views are reflected on different ways of talk and consequently on different use of words – or ‘lexical worlds’, a term proposed by Reinert (Reinert, 1990; Reinert, 1998; Camargo, 2005). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of ALCESTE software as a tool able to analyze the content of arguments in classroom discourse. In this way, we expect to overcome some limitations of methodologies focused only on TAP.

METHOD Participants and research context The objects of analysis were three collective texts and 45 individual texts produced by 10-12 years old students from a public school in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The city’s economy is based mainly on sugarcane and peanut plantations, and the families of many students work in this sector. The texts analyzed were part of the teaching sequence entitled “Read, write and talk in Science classes: a study on biodiversity”. This sequence included activities such as, interviewed of the population on air quality and garbage collection service, reading of texts about deforestation and monoculture, discussions from different perspectives and orals communications on some socioscientific issues.

952

Strand 7


Before the production of the texts itself, students collected data (i.e., measurements of litterfall, canopy opening, plants height and the number of plant species) in a reforestation area and in a canebrake in order to investigate which of these environments would have greater biodiversity. In classroom, teacher and students answered this question producing collective texts. Subsequently, using the field notebook, the students produced texts individually, answering a socioscientific issue: “what destination the city should give to an area donated by a farmer?”, choosing between sugarcane plantation and reforestation area.

Analysis steps In each text, the arguments were identified according to Toulmin’s framework. Arguments presenting at least the three basic elements of TAP (data, warrant and claim) were considered valid arguments and those including additional elements were classified as more complex. Subsequently, the valid arguments were analyzed by the ALCESTE software. The aim of software is to identify the main topics of any text, analyzing the distribution of words (lexical content) in a statistical framework. Firstly, the program performs fragmentations from Initial Context Unit (ICU) – each argument inserted – given rise to Elementary Context Units (ECU) – the smallest meaningful units whose length is driven by the punctuation. Then, the program identifies all lemmatized words (i.e., variants of words reduced to their root-forms) present in this fragments, calculating the frequency of each form. In a next step, word classes are identified by the Hierarchical Descending Classification method, in which the program performs a first partition of the total set of ECU’s into two classes. Ideally, each one of these two resulting classes has a different vocabulary composition, not containing overlapping words. However, as this is not actually feasible, the software seeks the delimitation with fewer possible overlaps between the vocabularies of the two classes, where the Chi² criterion reaches its maximum value – Chi² is calculated comparing the observed distribution of a word with the average expected distribution. In other words, if there are two different ways of talk, the vocabulary of one class would be different from another. The strength of association between each word and its class is expressed by the Chi2 number, and as higher is its value, more important would be the word for its class. The first two classes obtained by Hierarchical Descending Classification are decomposed again following the same procedure, and so on, until the statistical test no longer supports more divisions. The ALCESTE software shows the words that contributed significantly for the construction of each class and the more representatives ECU’s. Other statistical procedures are used to increase the confidence in the data generated (Reinert, 1990; Reinert, 1998; Camargo, 2005) (Figure 2). TOTAL CORPUS (all arguments) ICU’S (each argument) First partition (punctuation)

ECU’S TOTAL Second partition (Chi2 maximum) Vocabulary 1

Vocabulary 2

CLASS 1 (ECU’S set 1) Vocabulary 1A

CLASS 1A (ECU’S set 1A)

CLASS 2 (ECU’S set 2) Third partition (Chi2 maximum) Vocabulary 1B

CLASS 1B (ECU’S set 1B)

Figure 2. Summary of ALCESTE procedures. 953

Partition no longer supported

Strand 7


It is worth mentioning that the use of computational analysis tools does not exclude the interpretation of the data by the researcher, who must evaluate the coherence/consistency of results generated by the analyses and make all necessary modifications and adjustments. Considering this, the ALCESTE software can be understood as a complementary tool for methodologies focused on content analysis.

RESULTS All collective texts showed valid arguments (i.e., data, warrant and claim) and only one additional element of Toulmin's scheme, the rebuttal, was found once (Table 1). Considering only individual texts, 33 of 45 had valid arguments, and backing and rebuttal were found in three and seven texts respectively (Table 2). Table 1. Toulmin’s elements in students’ collective texts. Collective texts Elements

Number of texts

Percentage of texts (%)

Data

3

100

Warrant

3

100

Claim

3

100

Qualifier

0

0

Backing

0

0

Rebuttal

1

33,3

Table 2. Toulmin’s elements in students’ individual texts. Individual texts Elements

Number of texts

Percentage of texts (%)

Data

45

100

Warrant

33

73,3

Claim

45

100

Qualifier

0

0

Backing

3

6,7

Rebuttal

7

15,6

The analysis using the ALCESTE software resulted in a total of 97 ECU’s. From these total, 72 were used to generate four classes. Among of those 25 ECU’s not classified by the software, 20 were redistributed by researchers into the classes according to their lexical content, summing up 92 ECU’s (95%). The Figure 3 shows the classes generated by the software, the significant words and their Chi² value. We can point out words such as ‘sugar’, ‘live’, ‘air’ and ‘bigger’ as those words more important for each corresponding class. Table 3 presents the four classes named according to our interpretations, with the percentage number and examples of ECU’s for each class.

954

Strand 7


Figure 3. Four classes generated by the ALCESTE software, with the most significant words and the results of statistical test. Table 3. Description of the four classes generated by ALCESTE software. The name of the classes follows our interpretation. Words highlighted are those statistically responsible for the class formation. Class

ECU’s (%)

ECU’s examples The forest had the largest number of species of tall plants, measuring about 5.75 meters. The forest diversity is higher, with 23 species. I observed 2 or 3.

1 Field work

2

Economic interests

21 (23%)

15 (16%)

The forest has biodiversity, which means a lot of animals, trees, fungi and bacteria species. In the forest there is a lot of types of leafs and species of plants, more than 14. The leafs are distinguished by shape and veins. The canebrake, because it is better for humanity. The forest does not bring us money. People need to think on future. We need think about money. Without the cane plantation we will not have the sugar and the alcohol. So, the forest is not so important. And the forest does not bring job to the people. It serves as home for the animals, but the cane offers jobs for the humanity.

3

Forest as habitat

28 (30.5%)

I choose both because the forests are being destroyed and the animals that live there are driven into extinction. So, the reforestation will get better this fact for us and for the others organisms.

955

Strand 7


I choose forest because there are more conditions for animals survive. I choose forest because animals can live better there, because the place of the animals is the forest.

4 Air quality

28 (30.5%)

I choose the forest because its air is not polluted and also because it is clean and people can breathe fresh air. I do not choose canebrake. I do not choose canebrake because our city is surrounded by cane plantation and it is not good to have a lot of canebrake, because burning affects the nature.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The analysis by Toulmin’s framework pointed out that arguments found in individual writing have greater structural quality than those arguments present in the collective texts. The classes generated by the ALCESTE allowed us identify the main topics addressed by students’ argumentation. The words and ECU’s belonging to Class 1 (23%) indicated arguments focused in field work, strongly supported by empirical data. This is clearly evident by the statement “the forest diversity is higher, with 23 species”. Class 2 (16%) is characterized by arguments based on economic interests, while in Class 3 (30.5%) the central theme of students’ discourse was the importance of forests as habitat for animals. Despite addressing relevant ideas for biology, this class is far distinct from Class 1.The arguments in Class 3 were not based on scientific knowledge nor empirical data but on common sense, expressed by assertions such as “the place of the animals is the forest”. In Class 4 (30.5%), the arguments are focused on air quality and pollution by sugarcane burning. The individual texts were involved in a decision on a socioscientific issue. Although 35 of 45 students have chosen the implementation of reforestation in the donated area, most of the arguments were related to everyday life or common sense (Class 2, 3 or 4) and not to the empirical data and scientific knowledge presented throughout the teaching sequence (Class 1). In the Classes 2 and 4, the discourse seems strongly influenced by the students’ social context. The sugarcane plantations are very important for economy of students’ city, where they constantly deal with problems associated with sugarcane burning. Furthermore, Classes 2 and 4 may have been influenced by the own context of teaching sequence, which involved activities about these social questions. Together, Classes 2 and 4 corresponded to 46.5% of ECU’s generated by the program. Thus, the software helped us to recognize that just few students used empirical data or scientific knowledge to support their written arguments. Therefore, this study highlights the potential of ALCESTE as a complementary tool in analysis of arguments, especially related to the content of argumentative discourse. A purely structural analysis might lead us to the conclusion that teaching sequences focused on socioscientific issues enhance the argumentative process, since favor the emergence of some additional Toulmin’s structural elements (as observed in students’ individual texts). However, it is also necessary analyze the content of argumentation, for example, evaluating whether the classroom discourse actually incorporates scientific topics or not.

REFERENCES Camargo, B. V. (2005). ALCESTE: um programa informático de análise quantitativa de dados textuais. In A. S. P. Moreira, B. V. Camargo, J. C. Jesuino & S. M. Nóbrega (Eds.), Perspectivas teórico-metodológicas em representações sociais (pp. 511–539). João Pessoa, PB: Editora Universitária UFPB.

956

Strand 7


Capecchi, M. C. V. M., & Carvalho, A. M. P. (2000). Argumentação em uma Aula de Conhecimento Físico com Crianças na Faixa de Oito a Dez Anos. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 5(2), 171–189. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. A. Jiménez (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives on classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). New York, NY: Springer. Nascimento, S. S., & Vieira, R. D. (2008). Contribuições e limites do padrão de argumento de Toulmin aplicado em situações argumentativas de sala de aula de ciências. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 8(2), 1–20. Reinert, M. (1990). Alceste: Une méthodologie d'analyse des données textuelles et une application: A. G. de Nerval. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 26(1), 24–54. Reinert, M. (1998). Alceste Version 4.0 – Windows (Manual). Toulouse, FR: Societé IMAGE. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

957

Strand 7


MEANING MAKING WITH GESTURES AND STRUCTURAL REPRESENTATION MEDIA IN PRE-SERVICE TEACHING Arcelino Bezerra da Silva-Neto, Marcelo Giordan and Alexandre Aizawa Laboratory of Research in Chemistry Teaching and Educational Technologies, Faculty of Education, University of São Paulo, Brazil

Abstract: This study is based on the sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1962) in seeking to characterize the production of meaning in terms of different semiotic modes of communication and representation, which comprehend verbal, gestures and imagery discursive aspect. The research focus is on Chemistry Teaching, in which the chemical structural representation (CSR) is on evidence and the relationships among gestures, teaching purposes and the use of CSR media are the units of analysis for understanding the production of meanings in classroom situations. The potential of the categorical data analysis of this research is related to the software Nvivo that allowed the overlapping and crossing of gestural categories extracted from McNeill (2005), epistemic operations adapted of Silva & Mortimer (2010), and the media, chalkboard and projection screen. The quantitative data obtained illustrate the density and variety of gestures, the teaching proposal associated to the epistemic operations and the preferences for media of the chemical CSR, where time and the incidence of categories characterize the gesture and epistemic profiles of the teachers. The results presented in this work indicate implications for understanding the processes of meaning making in the classroom. Therefore, the episodic analysis associated to crossings categorical data suggest a hypothesis about gesture and epistemic patterns of the two teachers in function of preference for teaching media. Keywords: gesture, epistemic operation, chemical structural representation.

INTRODUCTION Language influences the way thought is structured, since it is a social construction (Vygotsky, 1962). It is also a way of meaning making that is shared by communities (Lemke, 1990). Language is present in the semiotic modes as resources for meaning making through speech, writing, gestures, position, gaze and sound (Jewitt et al, 2001). These semiotic modes constitute a field called multimodality whose roots are based on the Systemic Functional Grammar of Michael Halliday and is also the basis for a field called social semiotcs (Halliday, 1994). Understanding how semiotic resources perform an orchestration in the classroom has been an object of study that extend the analysis of discursive interactions, since it is not only the verbal mode that occurs the meaning making (Jewitt, 2005; Piccinini & Martins, 2005). The gestures are present in the communication as co-expression of speech (McNeil, 2005). The gestures are a visible action of the body that have specific functions in action units (Kendon, 2004). The relationship between gesture and speech emerges from studies of psychology and linguistics. Based on an ethnographic approach, Roth and Lawless (2002) answered questions about why and how gestures might support the emergence of conceptual language. There are several gestural categorization, among them, McNeill (2005) include the following: deictic, beat, iconic and metaphorical. It was possible to employ them in the analysis of physics lessons, which considered the processes of electrification of material (Wolff-Michael Roth & Welzel, 2001), and of chemistry lessons about the constitution of molecules (Quadros & Mortimer, 2010). Adaptation of the four categories for teaching situations is a point to be 958

Strand 7


discussed in the context of chemical structural representations (CSR) (Giordan, Silva-Neto and Aizawa, 2015). The present study is based on the sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1962) in seeking to characterize the production of meaning in terms of other semiotic modes of communication and representation, besides the oral and written languages. The research focus is on Chemistry Teaching, in which the CSR is on evidence and the relationships among gestures, teaching purposes and the use of CSR media are the unit of analysis for understanding the production of meanings in classroom situations. From the relationships among the three categories, we raise a hypothesis about the occurrence of patterns for gestures in terms of the CSR media and teaching purposes. As a result of the analysis, different styles of teaching and modes of meaning making in the classroom are characterized. For gesture analysis, four categories due to McNeill (2005) have been considered. The iconic and metaphorical gestures are classified as representational gestures, since the iconic gestures represent specific and concrete features of the molecular object displayed in the media, and metaphorical gestures refer to abstract aspects, namely generalizations produced with the use of CSR. Deictic gesture is related to a pointing movement to the SR and the beat gesture is used to emphasize the verbal speech of the teacher. Teaching purposes are categorized into epistemic operations (Silva & Mortimer, 2010) that the teacher performs. The media used to present the CSR in the classroom are chalkboard and chalk, projection and computer screens, spatial models of plastic or other materials. The questions we intend to answer about the relationship between gestures, epistemic operations and media are: (1) which relationships do exist between the gestural performance of the teacher and the media? (2) how are characterized the styles of teaching from the cooccurrence of gestural categories, epistemic operations and media?

METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN The research data were collected by the video recording of chemistry lessons taught by two pre-service chemistry teachers of a public university in Brazil. Lessons have been designed in terms of didactic sequences based on the Topolical Model of Teaching, whose teaching structure is organized into levels (L). From the video recording, lesson have been segmented into episodes and discursive sequences that were transcribed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Adaptation of the Topological Model of Education to characterize the video recording.

Among the episodes of the two lessons, one of each pre-service teachers has been selected based on the presence of the CSR. The analysed episode of teacher P1 lasted 17min and 25s and the topic of didactic sequence was 'plastic bags'; the episode of teacher P2, about

959

Strand 7


'soaps and detergents', lasted 17min and 4s. The categorization was validated by peers. In this case, three researchers attributed the categories independently and then there were discussions on the agreements and disagreements. In Figure 2, the topology of levels for the two didactic sequences are represented by rectangles. In the inner rectangle, one can see the occurrence of the three categories of microgenetic analysis.

Figure 2. Time lasting and occurrence of categories for both didactic sequences.

The categorizations of both teaching episodes were performed in the computer software Nvivo 10. The software enables the organization and processing of data of hybrid research, both being a tool of systematic qualitative data and quantification of such data. In figure 3, we exemplify a diagram extracted from Nvivo showing a timeline of 4 minutes lasting and the co-occurrence epistemic (pink), gestural (blue) and media (green) categories.

Figure 3. Diagram of the Nvivo software illustrating the occurrence of epistemic, gestures and media categories.

The data were compared using the cross table technique to investigate the patterns of gestures of the teachers in terms of the teaching purposes (epistemic operations) and the media used. Each category was confronted to the other in terms of the their co-occurrence. The cross table has been employed in two situations: (1) between two categories to study the gestural performance in different media of teaching and (2) to verify the occurrence of proportional relationship of iconicity and the degree of abstraction in different media. For the second case, we have fixed the medium (chalkboard and projection screen) and we have analysed the variation of gestural and epistemic categories, ie., the investigation occurs by crossing of three categories. Therefore, the data were also analysed in terms of quantitative treatment of time (media) e and incidence of categories (cross table).

RESULTS The media of structural representations used to analyze the lessons of the teachers are shown in Figure 4, with chalkboard (a), projection screen (b), plastic models (c) and computer screen (d).

960

Strand 7


(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

Figure 4. Illustration of chalkboard (a), projection screen (b), plastic models (c), computer screen (d).

The plastic model medium was not seen in two episodes and the computer screen was used only by P1 and therefore they are not carried out in the cross table analysis for both media. The chalkboard and projection screen were the most used media by the teachers. The data in Table 1 indicate that P1 remained most of the time at the projection screen, lasting 11 min and 42s (67%), moreover, there was also a greater amount of gestures (Table 2) at that medium (90%). In his turn, P2 uses both the projection screen (49%) as chalkboard (45%). Table 1. Frequency of use of chemical structural representation media. P1 P2 Media Lasting % of the Lasting % of the (mm/ss) episode (mm/ss) episode Chalkboard

02:38

15%

07:40

45%

Computer screen

01:06

6%

00:00

0%

Projection screen

11:42

67%

08:20

49%

The analysis of the gestures performed with different media has shown how the production of meaning occurred in the lessons of P1 because the chalkboard medium was used by the teacher to give information of molecular object that were not present in the projection screen illustrations. In addition, P1 made translations of RE present on the projection screen and gave other meanings to the concepts related to the nature of the molecular object. The gestures were used to describe the dashed and filled wedges of the spatial structural representation of ethanol and impart to them senses of spatiality (Figure 5).

(A) P1: This dark wedge is indicating that hydrogen here are coming out of the chalkboard plan.

(B) P1: So, think that this hydrogen is coming out here.

(C) P1: This hydrogen is coming out of the chalkboard plan.

Figure 5. Sequence of iconic gestures perfomed by P1 on the chalkboard.

The data in Table 2 show that the greatest amount of gestures occur on the projection screen (90%), that is, the gestural performance of the teacher is featured on this medium as constituted by deictic gestures (63%) and beat (56%). However, the analysis of 8% of

961

Strand 7


gestures performed on the board by P1 (Table 2) indicated that 50% (8) of them are iconic gestures. Table 2. Relationship between categories of gestures and structural representation media. P1 P2 Media Chalkboard Projection screen Computer screen Chalkboard Projection screen Gesture (8%) (90%) (2%) (56%) (44%) Beat

1

56

3

3

8

Deitic

6

63

0

31

24

Iconic

8

20

0

9

7

Metaphoric

1

31

0

23

13

Total

16

170

3

66

52

Therefore, when comparing the iconic gestures performed on the chalkboard with the epistemic operations, we found just one teaching purpose, during the course of the 8 gestures, the description of the molecular object (Table 3). Table 3. Overlapping frequency of gesture and epistemic categories at chalkboard medium for P1. P1 – Chalkboard Epistemic op. Explanation Molecular description Exemplification Gesture Beat 1 1 0 Deitic 0 5 1 Iconic 0 8 0 Metaphoric 1 0 0

For P2, one observed a similar distribution of time between the two media (Table 1), the difference was only 40s (4%). By analysing Table 2 with the overlap of gestures and media, it was found that the frequency of gestures was slightly higher on the board, except the beat gestures whose overlay was three times at the projection screen (Figure 6).

(A) P2: It will form a compound that turns into a solid and then

(B) P2: there are several consequences

(C) P2: both the environmental impact and in the pipeline

Figure 6. Sequences of beat gestures performed by P2 on the projection screen.

In situations of production of beat gestures at the projection screen, P2 held 3 beat gestures with the purpose of explaining the interaction of the molecular structure of soap with calcium and magnesium ions from hard water, and the formation of a solid compound (Figure 6A), in addition to indicate that there were consequences (Figure 6B) for the home pipeline system (Figure 6C). In Table 4, one observes the co-occurrence of gestures and epistemic operations in the chalkboard medium, especially due to the beat gestures related to explanation (4), exemplification (3) and molecular description (1). Furthermore, the beat gesture corresponds to 50% of the epistemic operation exemplification (3).

962

Strand 7


Table 4. Overlapping frequency of gesture and epistemic categories at projection screen medium for P2. P2 – Projection screen Epistemic op. Explanation Molecular Definition Exemplification description Gesture Beat 0 4 1 3 Deitic 1 10 10 1 Iconic 0 4 1 2 Metaphoric 1 7 5 0

DISCUSSION In the teaching episode, P1 worked concepts related to the nature of the molecular object on which the analysis of categorical data indicates expanded gestural performance, ie, high density of gestures (191). The vast majority of gestures presented in table 2 (68%) refer to non-imagistic gestures, whose purpose was to indicate the molecular object (deictic gestures) or emphasize and give rhythm to the teacher's speech (beat gestures). The preferred medium wass the projection screen (67%), followed by chalkboard (15%) and computer screen (6%). P2 used the CSR as a cultural tool to meaning making about the soap cleaning phenomenon, above all, emphasizing the interaction of particles. In the episode studied, she remade the meaning to CSR adding new information to molecular object. The gestural performance of P2 was more contained (104) that P1, which consisted primarily of deictic gestures and metaphoric gestures. In the projection screen, there was no presence of CSR and gestural movements emphasized and provided rhythm to the teacher's speech. At another point, P2 exemplified the soap cleaning processes and with a set of 3 beat gestures the teacher emphasized the word rubbing, moving his hands together as if rubbing something and also moving apart the hands to emphasize the movement of the soap in the aqueous medium. The beat gesture was also performed to indicate the transition of the teaching purpose, as the teacher indicated she would describe a molecular object and then she would explain a chemical reaction. Accordingly, the emphasis of the teacher is not on CSR presented in the medium, but it is on the purpose of explaining the chemical reaction of saponification through the molecular particles. Thus, two teaching styles were observed whose characterization took place by means of gestural performance, teaching purposes and using of CSR media. P1 is a teacher whose expanded gestural performance consists mainly by deictic and beat gestures, which are performed mainly by his favorite medium (projection screen). However, one observes changes of the teacher gestural performance by modifying the teaching medium, as the frequency of iconic gestures is increased to 50% when P1 uses the chalkboard. In her turn, P2 has a constrained gestural performance with the recurrence of deictic or metaphorical gestures and she has no preference for teaching media, however, one observes the increase in the beat gestures when she modifies the teaching medium.

FINAL REMARKS The results presented in this study indicate implications for understanding the meaning making processes in the classroom from various semiotic modes of communication and representation (speech, gestures and images). The cross table technique for gestural, epistemic and medium categories allowed the characterization of teaching styles from the gestural performance studied in terms of density and gestural frequency, so that changes were

963

Strand 7


observed in the gestural performance of the teacher based on the teaching media employed to meaning making of the chemical concepts, that is, there are evidences that the change of the teaching medium alters the gestural performance of the teacher. Thus, we suggest a hypothesis on the proportional relationship of gesture iconicity and the situations of use of less abstract epistemic operations, because the epistemic operation ‘molecular description’ refers to a CSR of the ethanol, which is a specific referent (Mortimer et al, 2005), therefore, less abstract, and the gestures performed highlight iconic elements of the CSR. However, in situations of generalization in which the CSR are treated in terms of class referents or abstract referents (Mortimer et al, 2005), there was an increase amount of metaphorical gestures. So, there are evidences that indicate the preference of P1 by metaphorical gestures combined with purposes related to more abstract epistemic operations, and to perform iconic gestures with less abstract epistemic operations. It was noted that P1 had preference for the projection screen, as it was the medium that showed greater density and variability of gesture. However, to develop the lesson on the chalkboard, the gestures of P1 became more restrained and their variability indicated teaching purposes guided by the medium used. In her turn, P2 used equally both media and produced lower gesture density than P1, however, this decrease was due mainly to beat gestures, which may indicate that the teaching purposes of P2 were more related to the structural representation than to the verbal discourse. In this study, we found two types of teaching styles that were characterized by the use of gestures patterns for specific purposes, and that changed in accordance with the teaching medium used.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Nucleus for supporting the innovation in science teaching (NAPIEC) and Council of research and development (CNPq, 470461/2014-4).

REFERENCES Giordan, M. (2008). Computadores e linguagens nas aulas de ciências. Ijuí: Ed. UNIJUÍ. Giordan, M., Silva-Neto, A.B. and Aizawa, A. (2015). Relationships between Gestures and Epistemic Operations Mediated by Structural Representation in Chemistry Lessons and their Consequences to the Meaning Production. Química Nova na Escola, 37 (Special number 1), 82-94. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). El lenguaje como semiótica social: la interpretación social del lenguaje y del significado. Bogotá: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “reading” and “writing” for the 21st century, 26 (3), 315332. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: the multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53 (1), 5-18. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Mcneill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

964

Strand 7


Mortimer, E.F., Massicame, T., Tiberghien, A. Buty, C. (2005, November). Uma metodologia de análise e comparação entre a dinâmica discursiva de salas de aulas de Ciências utilizando software e sistema de categorização de dados em vídeo: parte 1, dados gerais. Atas do V Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Bauru, SP, Brasil, 28. Piccinini, C., & Martins, I. (2005). Comunicação multimodal na sala de aula de ciências: construindo sentidos com palavras e gestos. Ensaio: pesquisa em ensino de ciências, 6 (1), 1-14. Quadros, A. L., Mortimer, E. F. (2010, July). Linguagem Multimodal: as aulas do professor de Ensino Superior. Atas do XV Encontro Nacional de Ensino de Química, Brasília, DF, Brasil, 21-24. Roth, W.M., Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientificconcepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, pp. 285304. Roth, W.-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From Activity to Gestures and Scientific Language. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING, 38, pp. 103-136. Silva, A. C. T., Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Caracterizando estratégias enunciativas em uma sala de aula de química: aspectos teóricos e metodológicos em direção à configuração de um gênero do discurso. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 15 (1), 121-153. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and speech. Cambridge: MIT press.

965

Strand 7


THE ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCHES: MEANINGS RELATED TO SUSTAINABILITY Danilo Seithi Kato1, Luiz Marcelo de Carvalho2, Clarice Sumi Kawasaki3 1

Triangulo Mineiro Federal University (UFTM) Universidade Estadual Paulista “Julio de Mesquita Filho” (UNESP) – Campus of Rio Claro 3 University of São Paulo (USP). Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Arts of Ribeirão Preto 2

Abstract: The present work originates from a 2014 Ph.D dissertation aimed at investigating Brazilian graduate theses and dissertations in the field of Environmental Education (EE) between the years 1980 and 2009. Chiefly, the present study has its focus on the dialogic analysis of the discourse to characterize research topics in environmental education - such as sustainability- from the meaning attributed to the concept of Ecosystem. Notably, this very notion emanates from the field of Ecology and shall convey distinct meanings in particular aspects of Environmental Education.The central goal of this work is to discuss dialogic aspects of language and the possibilities to identify and investigate implications for the teaching of sustainability arising from EE research papers. To this end, we first delimited the theoretical framework of the studies on language philosophy from the perspective of Mikhail Bakhtin and his Circle (1894-1974), along with the conceptual potentiality of meaning and senses. Subsequently, we offer an explanation of the historical context of the ecosystem concept and identify possible meanings linked to the ecologist movements; that include the concerns of humankind towards the environment. Hence, the methodological procedure adopted in that research context comprises a range of theses and dissertations under the scrutiny of an interinstitutional research group in EE (EArte). The examination of such concept into EE research was supported by the view of cultural and historical studies within the context of qualitative research in education. We found that the ecosystem concept assumes meanings associated with environmental conservation, sustainable development and sustainability, and environmental services. Despite the effort to include humans as part of ecosystems to consequently preserve them, there is still an anthropocentric perspective from the idea of goods and services provided to humans. Finally, Finally, this discussion allows us to infer important relationship to sustainability teaching and the school context. Keywords: Ecosystem; Environmental Education; Academic production; Meaning; sustainability.

MOTIVATIONS AND OBJECTIVE The present study is characterized by Dialogic Discourse Analysis (D.D.A). In this light, the discourse refers to a socio-historical phenomenon that produces a network of meanings. Herein, the discourses are regarded as part of a major communicative space of ethical, political and existential that govern both individual and collective life (Carvalho, 2005). Thus, the specific focus gives shape to the environmental discourse, presenting it as dynamic and plural in the current global scenario. In view of the above, we chose to understand and exploit such discursive practices, to outline a set of research field features in EE in Brazil which addressed the concept of "Ecosystem". Thus, it is crucial to highlight the academic production as discursive practices, as well as a communicative network that sets up a speech. This effort is established as a permanent theme that will continue to bring different problems and theoretical perspectives to the debate, in different social spaces. 966

Strand 7


This work aims at presenting part of the results originating from a Ph.D. thesis completed in 2014 (Kato, 2014), within the context of an interinstitutional research group investigating the state of the art academic research in Environmental Education (EE) in Brazil (Research Group on State of the Art in Environmental Education- EARTE). The selection of the studies comprising this collection and the collection of graduate programs in EE used both CAPES and CNPq databases.In addition to the document classification, selection and organization of the production performed between 1980 and 2009, the research group produced an electronic catalogue of theses and dissertations to enable further investigations in the field (Carvalho, 2013). For the development of doctoral research, we analyzed a set of master's theses and doctoral dissertations in environmental education within school settings, selected from the catalogue produced by EArte where the ecosystem concept is somehow exploited in academic research. This study, allowed the systematization of crucial historical aspects towards the scientific concept of ecosystem, and the identification of "significance nuclei”. This effort raises questions about the scientific appropriation of the ecosystem concept by research in EE. Our primary goal is to discuss the meanings and explore possible interpretations of ecosystem in the research reports within the selected documents. Herein, the ramifications of these meanings and senses concerning their relationship with the prospects of sustainability were prioritary.

THEORETICAL RATIONALE According to Bakhtin (1894-1974) and his Circle, the relations between "theme" and "meaning" were the theoretical matrix to explore possible meanings associated with “ecosystem” within environmental education research. The use of the ecosystem concept in the field of E.E is not a mere coincidence; it is possible to investigate the different meanings given to that concept in this field. Thus, in the light of this work, the use of the concept of meaning in Bakhtin's perspective to explore the ecosystem concept of significance process can contribute not only to the comprehension of the influence of the speech prepared by Ecology - while science- in the construction of the environmental discourse; the concept can also be useful to identify specific processes of environmental education field within the appropriation process of ecological concepts by its discourse. In this analysis, the ecosystem concept was examined as a material sign and its various meanings. This set of elements leads to a possibility of discussion of possible meanings associated with this concept in research related to environmental education. From the analysis of this discourse within the research, it was possible to discuss the implications of these meanings that unfold on the issue of sustainability in the school context. Ecologists recognize the concept of “Ecosystem” for its historical importance in the study of phenomena and natural processes. These elements involve biotic and abiotic factors complexly articulated in a given space and time. In addition, the ecosystem concept has a significant historical role in the scientific context for the consolidation of Ecology field. In the historical moment in which the term originated, it is possible to identify several other concepts of ecology which are involved in the discussion by leading researchers of that time (Golley, 1993). The opening article, where the ecosystem concept was introduced, entitled "The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms" by Arthur George Tansley (1871-1955), in the Journal of Ecology in 1935. The concept came to be used only seven years later in an article by Raymond L. Lindeman (1915-1942) in 1942, when English society had been experiencing

967

Strand 7


a delicate time during World War II, when many political conflicts hindered the development of research programs in the scientific scenario (Golley, 1993). The historical analysis of the ecosystem concept over time indicates that this concept has had several meanings. In addition to influencing the research with their philosophical perspectives, the concept of Ecosystem was also pivotal to several studies. Thus, Golley (1993) organized the ideas around that concept into three broad perspectives that defy ecological science: the organismic idea, the deterministic idea, and the cybernetic ecosystem. According to Golley (1993), the semiotic configuration of the term was essential to that option: the "Eco" prefix has been a frequent use in academia. This use extends the Ecology field per se, to its growing relationship with contemporary concerns about environmental issues in the so-called "environmental movement". In turn, the suffix "system" is related to the technical, modern and scientific aspect, assimilating ideas of physics, as an important and consolidated area in science, especially in regard to the relationship between the functioning of a machine and the environment as a whole.

METOLODOGICAL PROCEDURE AND DISCUSSIONS The methodological approach included a documental selection phase from a database of theses and dissertations (EArte). In the second phase, we decided to search the papers that included the concept of ecosystem within their abstract, title or keywords (63 identified papers). Subsequently, we started the selection and analysis of works addressing the educational context, focusing on the Ecosystem Concept (9 papers). The first stage of the work consisted of general characterization of the definitive documental corpus. The subsequent step was to identify the paragraphs in which the ecosystem concept was mentioned. From the systematic data at this stage and considered as pre-indicators, the construction of indicators, and finally, the significance nuclei were carried out (Aguiar; Ozella, 2006). TEXT GIST MAIN TOPICS

CORE MEANINGS

Figure 1. Metodological procedure to identify meanings and senses about ecosystem concept .

In this paper, we privilege the discussion on the construction of two distinct significance nuclei referred to as "ecosystem as amended unit, to be preserved by human beings" and "Ecosystem and environmental services to be rendered to mankind, which is part of the system " (Figure 2).

968

Strand 7


Figure 2. Two core meanings arising of analysis in Environmental Education theses and dissertations.

About the significance nuclei selection, only the two above have been selected because they bring perspectives that support the discourse of the articulation between human action and the environment. These meanings bring along the complexity of information exchanges and dynamic balance of ecosystems and underpin aspects concerning conservation and sustainability. One of the analyzed studies (TR7) brings pre-indicators of the "ecosystem as a unit to be preserved / maintained", exploring the concept based on aspects of the dynamic balance, to highlight human actions and attitudes that conserve ecological systems. The following excerpt demonstrates this idea: [...] The concepts of development and progress shall focus on the quality of life of ecosystems as a whole, and will provide the evolution of thought in more concrete and ecological bases. Thus, public schools are contributing to the empowerment of societies facing a harmonious and balanced coexistence with the natural ecosystems. (Paper 7; p. 3)

The work concerned displays the harmonious and balanced perspective as complementary and necessary to natural ecosystems. Thus, both harmony and balance are the results of a society that is aware of the demands of ecosystems and harmonious coexistence with it. In another study (TR9), the author articulates economic development with the preservation of ecological systems. The researcher proposes a balance between production systems in environmental carrying capacity and its preservation. However, the coalescence between environmental preservation with development proves entirely possible, since the natural resources of our planet are not inexhaustible; with knowledge of the operating mechanisms of ecosystems, Humankind, to a limited extent, could use those resources, causing no major damage. (Paper 9; Page 45).

There is evidence that the knowledge comprising the "ecosystem functioning", which includes the dynamic balance perspective and the cybernetics perspective of feedback concerning the relationships between their constituent elements, appears as the possibility of reconciliation between human beings and the environment. In this sense, mankind is separate from nature, inserting them into their social social identity, against the support apparatuses of natural systems. These are the most powerful meanings towards conservation / environmental preservation arising from the concept.

969

Strand 7


According to Leff (2009), the discourse of sustainability and sustainable development are distinct. The latter has gained momentum over recent years and may legitimate predatory economic practices when combined with harmonized economic growth perspective with the ecological sustainability of ecosystems in a balanced fashion. Leff (2009) states that the encounter between the capital and ecology is characterized by a given voltage, having already been contemplated, in a much more radical way, within the eco-development discourse. This is a concept which is prior to sustainable development, proposing major changes in existing economic models. To this author, the concept of sustainable development depoliticizes the idea of eco-development and sustainability. Such systemic notion of interdependence, in which mankind is a component unfolds on the idea of “environmental goods and services”. In the TR8 study some passage mentions this notion of interdependence associated with the terms "provides services" and "clients" as a metaphor to explain the concept. The author makes use of metaphor in which services, goods and clients are used as enablers for the understanding of processes and interdependencies established in an ecosystem. The "client" metaphor demonstrates, separately, the emerging meaning on the environmental goods and services in which humans compose the system. Far more frequently than one might imagine, an ecosystem is part of an intricate web of interdependencies. To the author quoted above, ecosystems, to the extent that they are interdependent, build networks where every one of them depends on its suppliers and provides service to a number of clients (...). (Paper 8, p.106)

These discussions are in line with what is recommended studies regarding the models of economic development and sustainability. The main reference here is no longer on human needs, but rather on the opportunities that are offered by ecosystems per se, considering their natural dynamics and the existence conditions they provide. Those discussions are in line with what is recommended in the studies about the models of economic development and sustainability. Here, human needs are no longer the main reference, but the possibilities that are offered by ecosystems per se, considering their natural dynamics and the conditions of existence they provide. The meanings identified in the present indicator include the intrinsic participation of the human being in all ecological processes that configure the ecosystem, so the human species is not regarded as an external group that owns the control and the power to exterminate or make the balanced use of resources contained in the natural environment - as in indicator previously explored – but, as part of the system that makes use of the goods and services that emerge from its operation. We found that the ecosystem concept assumes meanings associated with environmental conservation, sustainable development and sustainability, and environmental services. Despite the effort to include humans as part of ecosystems to consequently preserve them, there is still an anthropocentric perspective from the idea of goods and services provided to humans. CONCLUSIONS The methodological approach chosen for this study contributes to a wider understanding of aspects of national production with regard to research in EA, in statements produced from the analyzed theses and dissertations. The effort to present the construction of two of the core meaning built in this thesis provides a dialogic analysis of the environmental discourse in the work of the documental corpus of this research (Figure 3).

970

Strand 7


Figure 3. General scheme about methodological aspects of research.

The discussion of the different meanings and senses, specifically those related to sustainability, identified for the concept of ecosystem research in the EE, allow the deepening of characterizations of the academic production; the ultimate goal of the research group that produced the present research work. The present study allowed us to identify different meanings of the concept of ecosystem in EE research. It was also possible to place meanings in the initial discussions about the concept in the field of Ecology and meanings linked the to mankind-nature relationship, properly belonging to the debates regarding the environmental education field. Thus, it was possible to discuss in two significance nuclei, different positionings regarding the human position in ecological systems. Whereas some authors seem to place the human being as an outsider to ecosystems, and at the same time being able to preserve it, others insert mankind as part of the systems, meaning the dynamics of the same as goods and services that can be provided to humanity. Among the studies discussing the ecological processes of an ecosystem as environmental goods or services inserting humankind as a component of ecological systems, conservation or preservation refers to an act of maintenance of those "services" that are fundamental to human existence (Leff, 2009). Those meanings enable the emergence of meanings related to sustainability as possible ideological positions, which arise from the ecosystem concept, even when not listed directly. Such discussion above demonstrates how the different meanings of the ecosystem concept can provide various fundamental senses to form an "environmental awareness" linked to educational proposals committed to learning for sustainability in the school context. The teaching of ecology, as formal curricular components, has historically been an entryway for environmental issues at school. Therefore, such meanings and senses can greatly influence such design and teaching practices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to CAPES/CNPq for the financial support to this research.

971

Strand 7


REFERENCES Aguiar, W. M. J.& Ozella, S. (2006). Núcleos de Significação Como Instrumento para a Apreensão da Constituição dos Sentidos [Core meaning as Instrument for the seizure of the Constitution of the Senses]. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 26 (2), 222-244. Araújo, A. D. (2006). Práticas discursivas em conclusões de teses de doutorado [Discursive practices in conclusions doctoral theses]. Revista Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 6(3), 447-462. Carvalho, I. C. M. (2005). A invenção do sujeito ecológico: identidades e subjetividade na formação dos educadores ambientais [The invention of the ecological subject: identities and subjectivity in the formation of environmental educators]. In: Sato, M. & Carvalho, I. C. M. (Eds.). Educação Ambiental: pesquisa e desafios. 51-63.Porto Alegre: Artmed. Carvalho,L. M.; et al. (2013). Relatório Científico: A educação ambiental no Brasil: análise da produção acadêmica – teses e dissertações [Scientific Report: Environmental education in Brazil: analysis of academic production - theses and dissertations]. UNESP – Rio Claro, UNICAMP, USP – Ribeirão Preto, 2010- 2012. Golley, F. B. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology.More than the sum of parts.New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Kato, D. S. (2014). O conceito de ecossistema na produção acadêmica brasileira em educação ambiental: construção de significados e sentidos [The ecosystem concept in Brazilian academic production on environmental education: construction of meanings and senses]. Tese (Doutorado em Educação Escolar) – Faculdade de Ciências e Letras, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Araraquara. Leff, E.(2009). Ecologia, capital e cultura: a territorialização da racionalidade ambiental [Ecology, capital and culture: the territorialization of environmental rationality]. Silva, J. E (trad.). Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes. Voloshinov, V. N. (2006). Marxismo e Filosofia da linguagem [Marxism and Philosophy of Language.]. Hucitec, 12. ed.

972

Strand 7


EPISTEMIC PRACTICES IN REPORTS WITH FIT OR ANOMALOUS DATA TO A KNOWN MODEL Maíra Batistoni e Silva1 and Silvia L. Frateschi Trivelato2 1 Escola de Aplicação, Faculdade de Educação – USP, Brazil 2 Faculdade de Educação – USP, Brazil Abstract: This study presents an analysis of discoursive epistemic practice in scientific reports developed by students. With this in mind, we applied inquiry activity about population dynamics in two classrooms, each with 30 students of ages between 14 and 15 years old, in a public school of São Paulo (Brazil). The reports produced after the inquiries were categorized according to the kind of data collected by the students, i.e., fit or anomalous to the known logistic model. Data analysis included the implementation of a system of categories based on literature about epistemic practice, and the interaction with our database. The results of the present study indicate differences in epistemic practice between reports, depending on the kind of data and standards used, i.e., predicted or unpredicted by an explanatory model. This is relevant to the planning of didactic activities, by aiming at engaging students in the practice of production, communication and validation of scientific knowledge. Keywords: epistemic practice, inquiry-based learning, discourse, biopopulation

INTRODUCTION Over the past years, the number of studies approaching epistemological aspects in science teaching has increased, thus concern should not only be with the acquisition of concepts, but also with enabling students to acquire knowledge and adopt the social practices of the scientific community. This, known as epistemic practice, concern the ways the members of the community propose, justify, evaluate and legitimize scientific knowledge (Kelly, 2008). In this way, science teaching must then engage students in investigative processes, in which they undergo, through epistemic practice, the social dimensions of production, communication and evaluation of scientific knowledge as proposed by Kelly and Duschl (2002). Inquiry-based science education is considered a current and innovative trend to science education able to foster student`s engagement in epistemic practice. This kind of approaching may be characterized by activities that pay attention to engaging students in: authentic and problem based learning activities, a certain amount of experimental procedures and “hands-on” activities to search for information, autonomy learning and argumentation and communication with peers (S-TEAM, 2010). Different studies on inquiry-based learning claim that the discipline specifities have to be considering. Biology, as an autonomous science, has specific characteristics that must to be address in the inquiry-based activities planning. One of these characteristics is the concept of biopopulation, i.e. while the inanimate world can consist of classes in which members could either be identical or have irrelevant variations, in a biopopulation each individual is unique. Thus, as the features of populations changing according to the component individuals, the processes observed in a specific population may not occur in the same way as in others. In this context, our aim was to understand whether the amount and kind of epistemic practices performed by the students differs when they work with different data in an inquiry-based learning activity. More specifically, we wanted to analyze the students’ epistemic practice when they work with fit or anomalous data to an explanatory model of biological dynamic population.

973

Strand 7


METHOD We applied inquiry learning activity to the population growth of Lemna sp. (a tiny aquatic plant) in two classes of 30 students each with ages between 14 and 15 years old. Once divided into groups, students investigated what happens with the population after colonizing a new environment. Each group of student colonized a new environment selecting some individuals of Lemna sp. from an initial population (Figure 1). During the investigative process (15 consecutive days), the students observed population growth and collected data, especially by photos. After, they produced inscriptions, analyzed the results and published a school scientific report. Experimental design applied to investigate population growth of Lemna sp.

Figure 1 - Each group of students observed the population dynamic of one biopopulation. As the features of populations changing according to the component individuals, the processes observed in a specific population may not occur in the same way as in others.

Analyzing the results in each report produced, we categorized them in two sets, considering population dynamics as observed by each group of students, namely: 1) fit to the known logistic model of population growth (n=10), and 2) anomalous to the known model (n=7) (Figure 2). Then, we assessed the 17 reports identifying epistemic practices used, considering that it can be cognitive or discoursive, as defended by Sandoval (2001). The description, as shown in Table 1, was used as rubric to identify the discoursive practice in each set of reports.

974

Strand 7


Examples of data in each category of students` reports.

Figure 2. A) The logistic model of population growth known by students; B) Example of produced data similar to that predicted by the logistic model; C) Example of produced data not predicted through the logistic model.

Table 1. Epistemic practices regarding scientific knowledge and description of how they were identified in the students' reports.

Epistemic practice

When a student has ...

1. Problematizing

Created a question related to the subject of study or revisited a question previously proposed by the teacher.

2. Elaborating hypotheses

Elaborated a possible explanation for a question or problem.

3. Planing inquiries

Set strategies to investigate a problem.

4. Making predictions

Managed to predict results based on an explanatory hypothesis.

5. Constructing data

Collected and recorded data prior to publishing them through literary inscriptions.

6. Considering different data Resorted to data apart from the work being developed at the sources time. 7. Conclusion

Concluded a problem or a question proposed.

8. Citation

Made explicit reference to the inscriptions produced or to the expertise of authority (teacher or specialized bibliography).

975

Strand 7


9. Narrative

Reported actions or previous events in a logical time sequence.

10. Description

Approached a system, object or phenomenon regarding the characteristics of its components or the spatial/temporal displacement of its constituents.

11. Using representational Used inscriptions to represent their own ideas. language 12. Explaination

Established causal relationships between observed phenomena and theoretical concepts and/or experimental conditions in order to give meaning to the phenomenon.

13. Argumentation

Used either evidence to support a debatable, temporary conclusion, or linguistic resources to persuade the reader.

14. Exemplification

Presented a theoretical model illustrated by the specific data.

15. Expressing opinions

Expressed personal, well-indicated opinions.

16. Definition Conceptualization 17. Generalization

/

Explicitly imputed meaning to a concept. Formulated descriptions or explanations independent of a specific context.

18. Using data to assess Presented data to evaluate theoretical formulation. theory 19. Evaluating consistency of Deliberated on the validity of the data obtained. data

RESULTS The Figure 3 shows a graph that represents the percentage of epistemic practices noted in each report category, according to the adjustment of the results to the logistic model of population growth, as known by the students. Considering the whole set of reports, 'description' (22.2%) and ‘explanation’ (18.8%) were the most used epistemic practices, followed by ‘narrative’ (8.9%) and ‘argumentation’ (8.4%). In category 1, the students worked with data predicted by the known explanatory model, explaining and arguing with greater frequency (21.8% and 13.5%, respectively) in comparison to those in category 2, who worked with unpredicted data (17.3% and 6.3%, respectively). On the other hand, in category 2 students more frequently engaged in other epistemic practice: ‘constructing data’ (8.2%), ‘conclusion’ (8.8%), ‘citing’ (6.6%) and ‘evaluating data consistency’ (2.2%).

976

Strand 7


Percentage of each epistemic practice identified in both categories of scientific reports.

Figure 3. The numbers in the horizontal axis refer to the epistemic practices described in Table 1. Arrows indicate those with greater differences in frequency between the two report groups.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that inquiry-learning activity benefits engagement in many epistemic practices in scientific culture. The great frequency of description in reports could be connected to the investigative question "What happens to a biological population after colonizing a new environment?" In this way, many students used description as an answer. Regarding educational culture, we could say that the students in category 1 could use a model to explain their results, thus accomplishing the task proposed by the teacher with the certainty that they are "doing the lesson correctly". On the other hand, those who could not use the logistic model to impute meaning to the data should formulate an explanatory hypothesis. Some authors defend explanation and argumentation as complementary discoursive actions (Berland and Reiser, 2009), with subtle differences between their characteristics (Osborne and Patterson, 2011) and, thus, we expected to find more arguments in the category of reports with more explanations. However, we noticed that the differences in the frequency of arguments in both sets of reports is greater than the differences in the frequency of explanation. Bravo et al. (2009) demonstrated that the use of evidence by students to build arguments has serious limitations. Erduran et al. (2004) declared that justification of arguments can correspond to empirical or theoretical evidence. In the situation investigated, the kind of empiric data could have influenced the development of arguments by the students. In category 2, the students did not possess data that could justify any explanation based on the theoretical model, whereby difficulties in their recognition as evidence for alternative explanations. Although working with data that does not fit into the theoretical model has hindered the action of explanation and argumentation, it has favored engagement in other practice, such as the construction of data and citations. In reports from category 2, the students used more than one inscription to present the results of the inquiry. As there were unpredicted data, they could build other inscriptions as a way to find evidence for the explanations, and thereafter refer to them in the reports with insertion of the appropriate citations. 977

Strand 7


In this category, we also more frequently found the epistemic practice ‘conclusion’. A hypothesis as regards this difference would be that, by using linguistic connectives of conclusion, students textually consolidate that even though the presented data is not in accordance with the explanatory model, they are fulfilling the task. Still in category 2, we found rare, but relevant indications of epistemic practice related to validating scientific knowledge, either by using data to evaluate the explanatory model or by assessing the consistency of the data obtained. This study demonstrated that the proposed inquiry activity facilitated the performance of epistemic practice related to production, communication and validation of scientific knowledge. When confronting data and standards different from those predicted by a known explanatory model, students produced scientific reports with differences in epistemic practice. These data indicate that the planning of teaching activities that stimulate student engagement in different forms of epistemic practice, should take into account the kind of data produced, to so improve the teacher's performance in the process of student appropriation of social practice from scientific culture.

REFERENCES Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. Bravo, B., Puig, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2009). Competencias en el uso de pruebas en argumentación Educación Quimica, De Aniversario, 137-142. 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. Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching Scientific Inquiry. Recommendations for Research and Implementation. (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Kelly, G. J., & Duschl, R. A. (2002). Toward a research agenda for epistemological studies in science education. Paper presented at the NARST annual meeting, New Orleans, LA. Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific Argument and Explanation: A Necessary Distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638. Sandoval, W. A. (2001). Students` uses of data as evidence in scientific explanations. Paper presented at the NARST annual meeting, New Orleans, LA. S‐TEAM (2010). Preliminary Report: The State of Inquiry‐Based Science Teaching in Europe. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU. Retrieved from: https://www.ntnu.no/wiki/download/attachments/27591492/01++Report+New.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1297850133000

978

Strand 7


RAISING QUESTIONS, AND TRYING TO ANSWER THEM: A STUDY OF STUDENTS' USE OF SECOND-HAND DATA Luiz Gustavo Franco Silveira and Danusa Munford Faculdade de Educação – Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – Brazil Abstract: In this study we analyzed how 3rd graders use second-hand evidence to answer questions raised by students in science lessons; and how the teacher/instructor orchestrate the use of evidence to answer these questions. This study is part of a research project that followed a group of children and their teacher from first through third grades. We report on results from the last year of the project. The research was conducted in a lottery public school in a big city in South America. Based on Interactional Ethnography, we did participant observation with video recording and field notes. Transcriptions involved constructing tables and maps, as well as wordby-word transcription using contextualization cues. For analysis, we selected three events, which were considered telling cases to illustrate aspects of the process of answering questions using second-hand data and part of the shared construction process of using evidence during science lessons in the classroom. In this class, the use of second-hand data involved remembering past experience in science lessons, and watching a video. In both cases, students engaged in discussing the use of evidence, proposing the use of pieces of evidence to answer questions, and evaluating the quality of evidence. The instructors were able to engage students in using evidence when constructing answers for their own questions, using different approaches/strategies. Keywords: Use of second-hand data; Elementary School, Science Education.

INTRODUCTION Argumentation in Science Elementary School In this study we investigate how third graders use second-hand data in science lessons to answer questions they raised. Adopting a socio-cultural perspective, various authors defend that children are capable of engaging in more complex practices as they learn science (e.g., Kirch, 2007), like participating in evidence-based argumentation. In the last decade, studies related to argumentation in science education have developed considerably, including investigations at elementary school (Ryu & Sandoval, 2012; Varelas et al., 2008). The key-role of evidence has been acknowledged in various studies (e.g., Kuhn, 1991; Sandoval, 2005; McNeil & Pimentel, 2010), orienting the development of curricula (e.g., RODA; Zembal-Saul et. al., 2013; Simon et al., 2012). Empirical research provided insights on how children use and evaluate evidence, and the challenges they face (e.g., Manz, 2015; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012; Sandoval & Çam, 2011; McNeill, 2011; Oliveira, Akerson & Oldfield, 2012). As Monteira and Jiménez-Aleixandre (2015) noted, researchers have been less interested in ‘whether’ children argue or not, than on developing a deeper understanding of ‘how’ children argue and how they use evidence. However, much has been discussed about the methodologies

979

Strand 7


in research on argumentation in Science Education. Some authors point out the importance of valuing the descriptive character of social processes of reasoning in this context (Bricker & Bell, 2008). Ethnography in Education (e.g., Bloome, 2012; Green et al., 2005) is one of theoreticalmethodological approaches that have great potential to emphasize the social nature of learning processes, and to foreground a descriptive perspective on classroom research. In this study, we combine this approach to elements of the argumentation theory Pragma-Dialectics. Using evidence from second-hand data One of the aspects that have been considered in studies about argumentation in science classrooms refers to types of data that students use. Considering situations when students are engaged in working with evidence, authors have proposed that data could be grouped in two categories: first-hand data and second hand data. First-hand data are those that the students collect themselves (Magnusson et al., 2004) during activities like observation or experimentation (Monteira & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2015). Second-hand data are those obtained from inquiries made by others (Magnusson et al., 2004), for example, when the teacher provides information or students search information in textbooks, Internet or other sources (Monteira & JiménezAleixandre, 2015). In their study with elementary students, Hug and Mcneill (2008) identified benefits and limitations in the use of both types of data. In this study, our focus is on second-hand data. Magnusson et al. (2004) indicate advantages in introducing the use of second hand data on inquiry activities in science classes. Scientific reasoning development was identified in contexts in which students have used secondhand data, but there are few studies that focus on them (Hug & Mcneill, 2008), or that examine the variety of this type of data (Kerlin et al, 2010). The current knowledge about this issue indicates that students not only are able to use secondary data sources, but they also raise more questions and try to identify patterns when using secondary data sources (Hug & McNeill, 2008). Moreover, while dealing with second-hand data, learners have opportunity to “struggle” with analysis, developing more complex arguments (Kerlin et al., 2010). Finally, in some cases, it is not possible to generate first-hand data, considering that the school setting is not appropriate for conducting certain experiments and observations (for reasons of time, cost, volume of data), or even because some concepts cannot be thought based solely in primary data (Grandy & Duschl, 2007; Hug & McNeill, 2008). In this study we investigate the following research questions: (1) In science lessons, how participating in an investigation based on second-hand data supports young children’s construction of notions of evidence use? (2) How teacher orchestrate the use of evidence in different moments of the investigation?

METHOD Research Design Our research group followed the same students with the same teacher throughout the first three years of primary education in Science and Portuguese classes (1st-3rd). However, this study

980

Strand 7


refers to events that occurred only in 3rd grade. We adopted an ethnographic perspective (Green, Dixon & Zaharlic, 2005) in order to have insights into what was significant from the point of view of participants. To accomplish that, we used certain ethnographic tools for constructing and for analyzing data (Green & Bloome, 1998). The construction of the data occurred through participant observation (Spradley, 1980) in science lessons with video recording and field notes. Based on Interactional Ethnography, we constructed tables and event maps to represent the group's history (Dixon & Green, 2005), and to situate specific events in this history.

Participants The research was conducted in a lottery public school in a big city in South America. The 27 students (12 girls and 15 boys) were 8-9 years old. They have different social and ethnic background. All students have gone through experiences in childhood education, but in different contexts (e.g, some went to public pre-schools while other went to private ones; some already could write/read a little whereas others could not recognize different letter). The school of these children is different from most other nearby schools. This school is situated in the campus of a major university, has a good structure, with well trained teachers, and students participate in various university research projects. The teacher Karina had 25 years of teaching experience, as well as experience in educational research (e.g., she had a PhD in education). During the period the study was conducted, she taught Portuguese and Science (with support from the research team) and participated in the meetings of the research group.

Instructional Context This study is part of a larger project that accompanied science classes over the first three years of elementary school. Over those three years, students participated in science inquiry units (NRC, 1996). Figure 1 represents a timeline with the sequence of science lessons developed over the first three years of elementary school, indicating where the events that were analyzed are situated. As highlighted in the figure, the three analyzed events occurred in the first half of 2014, when students were enrolled in 3rd grade. The students were learning about animal behavior and, more specifically, parental care behavior. This theme was addressed to develop students’ understandings about the scientific concept biological adaptation.

Data Analysis Our analyses were based on transcription at different levels. At the macroscopic level, we built maps and tables of events that allowed us to have an overview of the group's history and identify specific events for microscopic analysis. We selected three events, which were considered telling cases (Mitchell, 1984), illustrating aspects related to the process of answering questions using second-hand data. At the microscopic level we transcribed the discourse wordby-word adopting the Microetnography approach (Bloome et al., 2005). The discourse was transcribed in message units based on spoken discourse, as well as on contextual cues (Gumperz, 1982) like intonation, pause, volume and speed. We divided the event in interactional units based on thematic coherence.

981

Strand 7


After word-by-word transcription, our analysis involved three main aspects considering the construction of the use of evidence by the group: i) the invocation of collective memories (Bloome et al., 2009); ii) group's argument features from descriptive elements of Theory Pragma-dialectic of Argumentation (van Eemeren et al., 2002); and iii) teacher's role in orchestrating the discursive interactions (Cadzen, 2001; and Walsh, 2006). We understood collective memories as public narratives in which members of the group take responsibility to recognize them and respond to them (Bloome et al., 2009). The process of socially building collective memories is related to how teachers and students structure and organize time. Its analysis can help to understand how people construct connections among events over time. The ways in which teachers and students evoke collective memories can generate learning opportunities (Bloome et al., 2009). We use the collective memory construct to define and analyze the moments when participants engaged in discussing past experiences that helped them to use second-hand data in science classes. We used the Pragma-dialetic Theory to analyze aspects of argumentation in this classroom. Van Eemeren et al (2002) define argumentation as “a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of propositions justifying or refuting the proposition expressed in the standpoint” (p. xii). According Budzyńska et al. (2014), this theory has been used in different areas of knowledge that aim to investigate specific communicative areas such as the legal profession, politics, medical and academic. In our research group, we have used the descriptive elements of this theory in order to investigate reasoning in science classes (e.g., Souto-Silva & Munford, 2014). In this paper, we have adopted the notion of main and subordinate diferences of opinion to describe features of argumentation in the analyzed group. According to van Eemeren et al. (2002), the analysis of argumentation must start with the recognition of hierarchical levels between the differences of opinion. This helps the researchers to understand how the argumentation developed, because various differences of opinion are inter-related. New discussions are generated as people engage in trying to resolve differences of opinion around the main disagreement. These new discussions are related to main argumentation and are important in solving difference of opinion. This approach offers a view of argumention that usually in not emphasized: the distinction between different levels of difference of opinion when people argue. Based on Cadzen (2001) and Walsh (2006), we described how the teacher orchestrated discursive interactions in science classes, in particular, when children discuss the use of evidence from second-hand data. One way to characterize classroom discourse is using the “traditional” representation IRE or IRF (initiation-response-evaluation or feedback). This triadic base represents classroom discourse, but, is necessary to use other additional constructs. These authors describe other ways to characterize teacher's interventions, like expansion of students sentences; use of elicitations, checking understanding, clarification, speech of students reformulation (Walsh, 2006), and techniques of revoicing, from which the teacher can foreground some aspects and background others (Cadzen, 2001). This perspective is important because the ways in which the teacher directs the discourse can create an atmosphere in the classroom that allows students a more active role (Walsh, 2006).

982

Strand 7


Figure 1. This diagram represents the history of the group, situating the events that were analyzed. The left column presents the major themes that were addressed throughout the three years. The central column presents in more detail the lessons of the unit on animal behavior. The boxes on the right describe the events that were analyzed.

RESULTS Descriptive Analysis of the Events In the analysis of the three events, we focused on discussions around questions that students raised. The teacher directed these discussions introducing and encouraging the use of evidence. The Event 1 begins when Karina showed a beetle that some students had captured. The teacher asked students about their memories of lessons in 1st grade. She points out that, at that time, the class was studying how to identificy the male and female stick-bugs. Vinicius suggested that some evidence could be used for identification, calling them "clues": the size of the animal. The transcription bellow illustrates the interactions.

Contextualization clues symbols:

↑ (rising intonation); I (pause); + (elongated vowel); ▼(lower volume); ▲ (higher volume); XXXX (inaudible).

983

Strand 7


Line

Participant

Discourse

1

Teacher

How to know I

2

if the beetle is male or female ↑

3

Ricardo

Looking underneath I

4

Teacher

But what will you see down there ↑

5

Ricardo

It’s easy it’s easy I

6

You take a magnifying glass and if you have a PINTINHO1 I

7

or a little thing I (move his index finger forward)

8

Teacher

9

But I did we see PINTINHO in the stick-bud ↑

10

Vinícius

No I

11

We saw because we learned I

12

We had a clue I

13

The greater was the fe+male

Then, Camilla suggested the identification based on the presence of a tube in female. In Event 2 the teacher asked each student to go to the front of the class to present a text produced in the previous class (Figure X). Nara asked a question about a video they watched in the first science classes of the semester, which showed a gorilla and a gorilla cub:

Line

Participant

Discourse

1

Teacher

Does Nara have a question↑ [teacher walks to the student and read aloud the question]

2

Nara

Why the father gorilla was not in the video ↑ ▼

3

Teacher

Danusa I

4

Ricardo

Why the father gorilla was not present in the video ↑ ▲

5

Breno

Wow I

6

Ricardo

Teacher I

7 8

1

Because he went hunting food I Mariana

But he does not hunt if he is at the zoo I

“Pintinho” is a word children usually use to refer to human male’s genitalia.

984

Strand 7

9


Teacher

Do you have any clue ↑

Nara wondered why the father gorilla was not in the video. Several students participated in the discussion and the teacher took up the issue, asking students to think about clues that would help to answer Nara’s question. Breno said there were no clues, because they did not know where the animals were. Ramon thought they need to investigate to find out. Nina said the gorilla could be the father or mother, and Vinicius said it was the mother, because the mother is caring for the puppy. In Event 3 there is a planned lesson to discuss evidence. The teacher wrote on the board the three questions that generated doubts in the previous lesson: "Why the gorilla father is not in the video? Is the biggest gorilla the father or mother? Were they at the zoo or in the wild?" Marcelo, Breno, Barbara and Camila said the video was a female gorilla because she had large breasts, as illustrated below: Line

Participant

Discourse

1

Teacher

Now it is evidence.

2

Marcelo

Evidence ▲

3

Students

XXXX [speaking togheter]

4

Teacher

Male or female Marcelo ↑

5

Marcelo

Female I

6

Teacher

Female I

7

Put there female I

8

Why ↑

9

Marcelo

She has breasts I

There were students who cited other evidence. Vinícius said the gorilla was female because it was not possible to see her PINTINHO1. However, the teacher asked if it was possible to make sure of that by watching the video. She stated that would need to check. Then, Mauricio said the gorilla was female because he saw its bottom. Mariana and Karla disagreed, and said this evidence did not help because both male and female have bottom. At that point, the teacher makes a transition to the other question: were the animals at a zoo or in the jungle. All groups agreed that it was a zoo. The researcher wrote on the black board the four evidence cited by the students: 1- Fence; 2- Straw; 3- Few trees; 4- Presence of woman. All students accepted the first three pieces of evidence. However, the idea that there was a woman in the video, suggested by Mariana, was not widely accepted. Some students disagreed saying that they were not sure whether it was a woman in this video and the presence of women would not indicate necessarily that it was a zoo.

985

Strand 7


Situated Analysis Our descriptive analysis of the events made evident the key role of collective memories in this classroom. Both in events 1 and 2, the group invoked collective memories. In Event 1, the teacher used a memory to engage the group in a reasoning that demanded the use of evidence. She recalled that the group had done an activity with stick-bugs. Students engaged in this discussion and sustained teacher’s narrative, citing evidence used at the time, like the size of the animal and the presence of a tube to lay eggs. Also in event 2 participants shared collective memories. Nara referred to a video shown at the beginning of the year. Based on participants’ engagement in the discussion, this memory was sustained and created opportunities for discussions on the use of evidence, like the lack of evidence provided by video (Breno’s suggestion), the need for more research to supplement the information (Ramon’s contribution), and evaluative comments from Mariana and Karla. The use of collective memories was important in this group because they represented a secondary source of evidence. That is, the data had already been collected at another time in history, but returned to the discussion and were used to think about evidence and evaluate them. The use of evidence as stimulated by a request from the teacher, is present in the three events, as exemplified in the transcription of event 3. Karina orchestrated classroom discourse using follow up strategies as described by Cadzen (2001) and Woods (2006). She sought to probe students’ ideas, repeated their lines, revoiced their answers, and demanded for clarification. We also think it is important to emphasize that guidance regarding the use of evidence occurred in several ways: teacher asked about evidence that would help to answer the questions, children were encouraged to think about the reasons behind their choices, and the teacher asked the children to debate and to explain to each other their reasoning, as also reported by Varelas et al. (2008). Analysis of this set of events helps us to better understand the complexity of argumentation and evidence use in the classroom. We highlight this complexity based on the different resources used as evidence by students and the hierarchical structure of the argumentative discourse. In events 1 and 2, children used anatomical features of animals: i) the presence of large breasts was used to state that the gorilla was the mother; and ii) the size of the animal and the presence ovipositor tube were used to respond whether the beetle would be male or female. In event 3, children relied on presence or absence of certain elements to answer whether the gorillas were in the zoo or in the wild: the presence of a fence and straw; or the absence of trees. Moreover, students started to engage in a process of evaluating the quality of evidence. In event 2, for example, Maurício suggested that the group should observe the gorilla’s bottom to find out what was the sex of the ape. But his colleagues did not accept his idea, claiming that this characteristic would not help to answer whether the gorilla was a male or a female. In the event 3, Mariana suggested that the presence of a woman in the video meant that the animals were in a zoo. This idea was also not accepted by the group because they could not get to a consensus about the presence of a woman in the video.

986

Strand 7


Another aspect of interest is the relationship between different issues in the process of argumentation. In the event 3 the teacher wrote down the first question on the board and the other two came from developments in the discussions that took place in Event 2. The question Nara asked, "Why the father gorilla did not appear in the video?", led to disagreements between students. The second question, "The biggest gorilla is the father or the mother?" Is an implicit disagreement with Nara’s point of view. Nara assumed that the gorilla father does not appear in the video, but for some students it is necessary to know, first, if the gorilla in the video is a male or a female. In event 2, in an attempt to answer the question of Nara, some students said that the father was probably hunting for food. Then, a new question, that is, another disagreement arose: "Were they in the zoo or in the wild?" According to some students, if the gorillas were in a zoo, gorilla father would not have to go hunting for food. In this case, the statement "hunting food" could not be used to answer Nara’s question. van Eemeren et al. (2002) call this type of configuration in argumentation “subordinate argumentation”. It occurs when new differences of opinion are generated when conditionals for accepting certain answers to the main difference of opinion are proposed. Thus the main discordance is “fragmented” in new disagreements/argumentations that are related to each other in a certain hierarchical structure. Subordinate argumentation was also observed in other phases of education (i.e., adult education, middle school) (e.g., SOUTO-SILVA, MUNFORD, 2014). Although it appeared that students changed the focus of discussion, we realized that every change of focus had the potential to help resolve a major debate, which reveals the complexity of argumentation in this class. In addition, this type of analysis offers a different perception of the argumentative process, since it presupposes a hierarchical structure in the construction of arguments, which are rarely contemplated in our field.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this class, the use of second-hand evidence involved remembering past experience in science lessons, and watching a video. In both cases, students engaged in discussing the use of evidence, proposing the use of pieces of evidence to answer questions, and evaluating the quality of evidence. Thus, as it has been described in the literature, even at elementary school, secondhand evidence can be considered a complex resource that can be used in different ways, and in different activities in science lessons (Kerlin et al., 2010). Another interesting aspect is the subordination in argumentation described in event 3. This indicates argumentation in science classrooms goes beyond coordination between claim and evidence. Argumentation is also related to how students try to resolve differences of opinion discussed in class, as presented in this paper. The discussions on the use of evidence observed in the events 1 and 2 have emerged in an way that was not planned, and the teacher used students' questions to stimulate work with evidence. Harlen and Qualter (2009) call these questions “productive questions”. In these cases, the teacher uses situations that occur spontaneously in science classes, as noted in the events. Andersson and Gullberg (2014) point out the use of these spontaneous interactions as a

987

Strand 7


fundamental skill of teachers in Elementary School and Childhood Education. Furthermore, the teacher used various follow up techniques to orientate the conversations and relied on memories to construct knowledge with the students, in different lessons, activities, and disciplines. This practice might have supported students in the use of second-hand data in order to use them as evidence to answer questions and evaluate its quality. The way the teacher interacted with students allowed more students to express themselves and to feel free to share their ideas, justifing positions in different ways and disagreeing with colleagues. As reported by Monteira and Jiménez-Aleixandre (2015), this kind of teaching practice creates an atmosphere more propitious to development of reasoning. Thus, we argue that these strategies are extremely relevant in science classes, especially at elementary school, when children are starting to learn about evidence use.

REFERENCES Andersson, K., & Gullberg, A. (2014). What is science in preschool and what do teachers have to know to empower children? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 275-296. Bloome, D. (2012). Classroom Etnography. In: Grenfell, M., Bloome, D., Hardy, C., Pahl, K., Powsell, J., & Street B. V. Language, Ethnography, and Education: Bridging New Literacy Studies and Bourdieu Paperback, Routledge, cap. 2, p. 7-26. 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, 2 (3), 473-498. Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over Time: uses of intercontextuality, collective memories, and classroom chronotopes in the construction of learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom. Language and Education, 23 (4), 313-334. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B.M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Cadzen, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. nd 2 ed, Portsmouth. Dixon, C., & Green J. (2005). Studying the Discursive Constructions of Texts in Classrooms Through Interactional Ethnography. In: Beach, R.; Green, J.; Kamil, M; Shanahan, T. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research. Santa Barbara, Hampton Press Cresskill, p. 349-390. Green, J. & Bloome, D. (1998). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: a situated perspective. In J. Flood, S.B. Health, D. Lapp (orgs.), Handbook for literacy educators: research in the community and visual arts (pp. 181-202). New York: Macmillan. Green, J., Dixon, C., & Zaharlick, A. (2005). A etnografia como uma lógica de investigação. Educação em Revista, Belo Horizonte, 42, 13-79. Grandy, R. & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the Character and Role of Inquiry in School Science: Analysis of a Conference. Science & Education.Springer, 16; 141–166 Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. 1st edition. Cambrige University Press.

988

Strand 7


Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2009). The teaching of science in primary school. London and New York: Routledge. Hug, B., & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: Does data type influence classroom conversations? International Journal of Science Education, 30 (13), 1725–1751. Kerlin, C. K., McDonald S. P., & Kelly, G. J. (2010). Complexity of Secondary Scientific Data Sources and Students’ Argumentative Discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (9), 1207–1225. Kirch S. A. (2007). Re/Production of science process skills and a scientific ethos in an early childhood classroom. Culture Studies of Science Education. Springer, 2 (4), 785-815. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77 (3), 319-337. Magnusson, S. J., Palincsar, A. S., Lomangino, A., & Hapgood, S. (2004). How Should Learning Be Structured in Inquiry-based Science Instruction? Investigating the Interplay of 1sthand 2nd-hand Investigations. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA; Session 65.023: Reading, Writing, and Understanding Science. Manz, E. (2015). Examining Evidence Construction as the Transformation of the Material World into Community Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1-28. McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary Student’s views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (7). 793-823. 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. Mitchell, C. J. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 238-241). New York: Academic Press. Monteira, S. F.; Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2015). The Practice of Using Evidence in Kindergarten: The Role of Purposeful Observation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1-27. Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., & Oldfield, M. (2012). Environmental Argumentation as Sociocultural Activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (7) 869-897. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to Elementary Children's Epistemic Understanding from sustained Argumentation. Science Education, 86 (3), 488-526. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89 (4) 634-656. Sandoval, W. A., & Çam, A. (2011). Elementary Children’s Judgments of the Epistemic Status of Sources of Justification. Science Education, 95 (3), 383-408. Souto-Silva, A. P., & Munford, D. (2014). Disagreement in Ordinary Teaching Interactions: A Study of Argumentation in a Science Classroom. Contributions from Science Education Research: Springer Netherlands, 1, 453-467. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Orlando, Florida. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendort, R., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

989

Strand 7


Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92 (1), 65-95. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. 1st edition, Routledge. Zembaul-Saul, C., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Engaging k-5 in constructing explanations in science. New York, Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

990

Strand 7


THE MEANINGS OF THE WORD “ECOSYSTEM” IN POPULAR SCIENCE BLOGS Cristiane Contin and Marcelo Tadeu Motokane Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Languages of Ribeirão Preto, Biology Department, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil Abstract: This is a qualitative study that sought to identify the different meanings associated with the word “ecosystem” in posts from popular science blogs from the website ScienceBlogs Brasil, considering its potential applications for ecology education. For this, we used the Bakhtinian referential of language and methodology of content analysis to analyze the posts published between the years 2012 and 2014 in all blogs on the site. As a result, we identified four Categories of Meaning: (I) Set of living beings; (II) Biotic, abiotic and evolutionary interactions; (III) Human-ecosystem interactions and (IV) Social and technological interactions. Knowing that the word ecosystem has several meanings in the analyzed posts, if a teacher decides to use any of these posts as a pedagogical tool in ecology education, they should select those that best fit their goals and become closer to the intended meaning to teach the students. Keywords: Ecosystem, Ecology Teaching, Blogs, Scientific Communication.

INTRODUCTION Environmental problems of anthropocentric origin exist for a long time. This happens because, since the beginning of civilization, humankind has resorted to natural resources for food, to produce energy, to craft goods, etc. Thus, humankind has always interacted and changed the nature around them. However, despite the existence of environmental problems, it was not until the mid-20th century that these problems became popular and began to be disclosed by the media and discussed by society (Viglio; Ferreira, 2013). An important event that propelled this popularization was the publication of the book "Silent Spring", by Rachel Carson, in 1962. In this book, the author discusses the negative effects the use of pesticides has had on the birds living in Maryland, USA. Since then, the dissemination of news related to environmental problems and the discussion of these by the society started to increase. In Brazil, a survey conducted in 2010 by the Ministry of Science and Technology has shown that topics related to environment are of the most interest to the people surveyed, with 46% declaring themselves “very interested” and 37% being “interested” (Brasil, 2010). The importance of environmental problems is such that they are part of school guidelines of primary and secondary education at federal level. Amongst the various areas in which the subject can be approached in school is Ecology, the science that studies the interactions between living beings and the environment where they live, taking into account several factors, since relationships established between living beings to their relationship with the physicochemical factors of the environment. In this perspective, to understand the environmental problems from an ecological perspective, it is important to get to know the different ecological concepts such as food web, ecological relationships, niche, ecosystem, and many others (Fracalanza, 1992). Several authors define the concept of ecosystem as central to the history and ecology education (Gooley, 1993). Therefore, the word ecosystem was chosen as the object of study of 991

Strand 7


this work. It is worth noting at this point, that this work will not approach ecosystem as a concept, but as a word, according to Bakhtin's perspective language (Bakhtin, 1997). In this perspective, a neutral sign, that may have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used and the subjects who use it. This research decided to use Bakhtin's perspective language, as it is believed that the combination of different meanings associated with the word ecosystem can lead the reader to have different understandings of it. In addition, the adoption of ecosystem as a word, permit us to look at how the word is being appropriated and used outside the scientific community, specially outside the academy and more precisely in scientific communication. Finally, another important premise of this research is that scientific media can be used as an important teaching tool in ecology education (Perticarrari, 2010). In addition, the search for scientific information on the Internet has increased in recent years (Brossard, 2013). Thus, it becomes important to understand how scientific information is being transmitted by this mean of communication. Given the importance of the word ecosystem for the ecology of teaching and discussion of environmental problems, and knowing the importance of science communication materials for ecology education, especially the electronics ones on the Internet, this work seeks to identify the different meanings associated with the word ecosystem in posts from popular science blogs from the website ScienceBlogs Brasil (http://www.scienceblogs.com.br), considering its possible implications for the ecology education and discussions about environmental problems.

METHODS This work is a qualitative research (Flick, 2012) that uses the methodology of content analysis proposed by Bardin (2011), to analyze the speech from posts from popular science blogs in ScienceBlogs Brasil. In the first stage, a floating reading of the research material was made in order to know the text and systematize the initial ideas, determining the documental corpus, the context unit and the register unit. Once this research aims to analyze the meanings associated with the word ecosystem in posts from ScienceBlogs Brasil, the word ecosystem was adopted as a recording unit. After choosing the recording unit, another reading of the research material was made to check posts in which this registration unit was present. We analyzed all posts published from the blog since its creation in 2008 until December 31, 2014. Using the feature 'Search' in Google Chrome browser, we selected all posts that fitted our criteria. From this point on, it was decided to adopt, as a documental corpus, posts published between 2012 and 2014. This cut was made due to the characteristic of blogs to publish new posts monthly, or even weekly, so that the posts published between years 2012 and 2014 were the most recent and proved to be numerically sufficient and significant part of the whole (Bardin, 2011). At the end of the pre-analysis, the word ecosystem was found 64 times, in 42 publications from 19 different blogs. The publications were numbered from 1 to 42 in order to assist in the arrangement and analysis of results. The context units adopted were the posts that had the word ecosystem written in it. Inside the post, we sought to identify the main meanings associated to the recording unit. Then, the main meanings were grouped into ‘Categories of Meaning’ according to the degree of complementarity and similarity. Finally, these ‘Categories of Meaning’were analyzed in the light of theoretical framework so as to reflect on the possible applications of these blogs in ecology education.

992

Strand 7


RESULTS After the identification of meanings associated with the word ecosystem, these were grouped into four main Categories of Meaning: (I) Specific set of living beings; (II) Biotic, abiotic and evolutionary interactions; (III) Human-ecosystem interactions; and (IV) Social and technological interactions. Each one of these categories will be described below.

Category I: Set of living beings. This Category is composed of only five posts, i.e., 12%. The publications gathered in this category associate the word ecosystem to a particular group of organisms or living matter, as can be seen in the excerpt in post 38: “From microscopic beings and its chemical traces, to macroscopic organisms and their organization in ecosystems”. (POST 38)

Category II: Biotic, abiotic and evolutionary interactions. It is composed of 13 posts, i.e., 31% of the publications analyzed, the second most frequent category. Posts in this category discuss the ecological interactions established between organisms such as competition, predation and parasitism. Moreover, some posts also discuss the flow of energy and matter in ecosystems, and some publications also associate evolutionary aspects to the word ecosystem, such as changes that ecosystems experienced over time in the paleontological scale. The main meanings associated with the word ecosystem were: (I) Ecological interactions between organisms in the ecosystem; (II) Matter and energy flow in ecosystems; (III) Evolutionary change. Representative excerpts of each meaning are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Representative excerpts of meanings present in the category “biotic, abiotic and evolutionary interactions”. Main meaning

Representative excerpt

Ecological interactions between organisms in the ecosystem.

For example, when an invasive species enters an ecosystem, it competes with native species for available resources. (POST 04)

Matter and energy flow in ecosystems.

All continental sediment inflow, full of organic and mineral matter, contributes to the productivity of the marine environment. Chemical elements like carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus are critical to marine ecosystems. The lack of a means to transport these substances from the land to the sea will lead to changes in the productivity of these ecosystems. (POST 34)

Evolutionary change

Past ecosystems may seem - at first glance - very different from those we know today, but still, guarding fundamental similarities. The ecological niches were essentially the same, what happened is that different groups have been alternating the roles! (POST 37)

Category III: Human-ecosystem interactions. 993

Strand 7


Half of publications, or 21 posts, associated actions and human values to ecosystem properties. In this Category, it was possible to identify three main meanings: (I) Source of ecosystem services, (II) Human interference in ecosystems and (III) Conservation/preservation of ecosystems. Representative excerpts of each meaning are shown in Table 2, below. Table 2. Representative excerpts of meanings present in the category “human-ecosystem interactions”. Main meaning


Source of ecosystem services

Extreme poverty makes people increase more and more their search area of food and wood, increasing the frequency of humans in virgin forest areas. (...) The pressure of man in untouched ecosystems and socialeconomic problems can not only be a direct cause of this outbreak, but of all the previous ones. (POST 11)

Human interference in ecosystems

When we feed wild animals we cause a number of problems. (...) This action can cause an imbalance in the local ecosystem, after all, the foxes will no longer eat their preys and consequently may multiply. (POST 18)

Conservation/Preservation of ecosystems

(...) it is important the production associated with plans that consider the maintenance of natural ecosystems as well as the recovery of degraded areas. These plans make up the Land Use Systems. (Post 16)

Category IV: Social and technological interactions. The Categories of Meaning ‘Social and technological interactions’ consists of five posts, i.e., 12% of the analyzed publications. In these posts, the blogger uses the word ecosystem amid discussions of ecology education, sometimes uses the word as an analogy to discuss social relations or technological interactions. From this, the main meanings associated with the word ecosystem in this category were: (I) Ecology education; (II) Social relations; and (III) Technological interactions. Representative excerpt of each meaning are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3. Representative excerpts of meanings present in the category social and technological interactions. Main meaning


Ecology education

Undergraduate students in Biological Sciences have to study topics ranging from microbiology to ecosystems and not always achieve a unique response to all the questions that can be generated within that spectrum. (POST 12)

994

Strand 7

Social relations

Technological interactions


Beyond having many important universities like MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Harvard, Boston University, Tufts, among others, the region is home to several museums, research institutes and hightech companies (Akamai, Genzyme, E Ink, Novartis etc.). There is, therefore, a rich ecosystem of discoveries, discussions, developments, innovations, creations, as I wrote in the first blog post. (POST 31) While at the time other major corporations moved huge funds and media conglomerates to capitalize an ecosystem that had always sought to keep the visitors within "gardens of pure ideology", property of this or that corporation, Google bet on the efficiency of its engine as a point of start and north for all Internet users. (POST 35)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The analysis of the selected posts allowed the construction of four major Categories of Meaning: (I) Specific set of living beings; (II) Biotic, abiotic and evolutionary interactions; (III) Human-ecosystem interactions; and (IV) Social and technological interactions. The Category ‘Biotic, abiotic and evolutionary interactions’ was the second most frequent. In this category, the posts discussed the interactions between biotic and/or abiotic components, or evolutionary changes occurring in ecosystems. Thus, the meanings gathered in this category are those that most resemble those present in the history of the science of ecology. This is explained by the fact that the blogs analyzed here have a focus on science communication, thereby using elements of science in their discussions. Besides, as discussed in the introduction, after the second half of the 20th century, environmental problems and issues regarding the environment have become widely publicized by the media and debated by society. So much that the Research of Public Awareness of Science and Technology in Brazil, made in 2010, highlighted that the environment issues are those that most interest the population interviewed. This, coupled with the idea, proposed by Miller (2012), that the blogger writes the blog planning on being read by other people, helps explain why this category is more frequent than the others. Another important result observed is the accumulation of posts between Categories of Meaning ‘Interaction human-ecosystem’ and ‘Biotic, abiotic and evolutionary interactions’. In these posts, the authors use resources of the science of ecology to discuss the relationship between man and the ecosystem, thus giving a more scientific basis for their discussions regarding the human-ecosystem interaction. In the Category ‘Set of living beings’, the authors associate the word ecosystem to a certain set of organisms. The use of the word ecosystem in these posts is intended to highlight an existing dynamic between the organisms. Finally, the posts in the Category ‘Social and technological interactions’, besides discussing the use of the word ecosystem in ecology education, also uses it as an analogy to discuss the social and technological relations. Thus, this is the category which includes posts with the

995

Strand 7


most distant meanings of those found over the history of the word ecosystem in the science of ecology, thereby distinguishing the semiotic capacity and neutral feature of this sign. In this way, thinking about the blogs from ScienceBlogs Brasil as a pedagogical tool in ecology education, it is important for the teacher to adapt this content. That is, considering that the posts analyzed had different meanings associated with the word ecosystem, if the teacher uses these posts as a pedagogical tool, they should select those posts that best fit the meaning they want to teach their students. In addition, the National Curriculum Guidelines of Brazil claims that, in addition to teaching ecology, students should understand the relationship between humans and the environment (Brasil, 1998). Thus, blogs can be used as teaching tools since, as pointed in this study, the most frequent Meaning Category is precisely the ‘Human-ecosystem relationship’. Moreover, the posts can also be used to discuss the dynamics that occur in ecosystems, such as the ecological relationships between organisms, the role of physicochemical factors and the transference of matter through the ecosystems. In the future, we expect to analyze the meanings associated with the word ecosystem in textbooks, in order to check if there are differences in meanings between these materials and the posts analyzed. This would help us understand how the posts can complement the teaching materials traditionally used in schools.

NOTES We would like to thank National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for funding the research, and the LINCE Group for intellectual contributions.

REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. (1997) Estética da criação verbal. São Paulo, SP: Martins Fontes. Bardin, L. (2011) Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo, SP: Edições 70. Brasil. (1998) Ministério da Educação. Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. Parâmetros curriculares nacionais: terceiro e quarto ciclos do ensino fundamental: introdução aos parâmetros curriculares nacionais. Retrieved from http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/introducao.pdf Brasil. (2010) Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil. Percepção Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia no Brasil: Resultados da enquete de 2010. Retrieved from http://www.mct.gov.br/upd_blob/0214/214770.pdf Brossard, D. (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. PNAS, 110, 14096-14101. Flick, U. (2012) Introdução à metodologia de pesquisa. Porto Alegre, RS: Penso. Fracalanza, D. C. (1992) A crise ambiental e ensino de ecologia: o conflito na relação homem – mundo natural. 1992. 318 f. Tese (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from Unicamp Library System. Golley, F. B. (1993) A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. More than the sum of parts. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. Miller, C. R. (2012) Gênero textual, agência e tecnologia. São Paulo, SP: Parábola. Perticarrari, A.; Trigo, F. R.; Barbieri, M. R.; Covas, D. T. (2010) O uso de textos de divulgação científica para o ensino de conceitos sobre ecologia a estudantes da educação básica. Ciência & Educação, 16, 369-386. Viglio, J. E.; Ferreira, L. C. (2013) O conceito de ecossistema, a ideia de equilíbrio e o movimento ambientalista. Caderno eletrônico de Ciências Sociais, 1, 1-17. 996

Strand 7


INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING PRIMARY STUDENTS TO CONSTRUCT ARGUMENTS WITH REBUTTALS Shinichi KAMIYAMA1,2, Tomokazu YAMAMOTO3, Etsuji YAMAGUCHI1, Miki SAKAMOTO1, Keita MURATSU1,4, and Shigenori INAGAKI1 1 Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University 2 Elementary School Attached to Kobe University 3 Graduate School of Education, Hyogo University of Teacher Education 4 Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Abstract: In the field of science education, argumentation is a necessary skill, as it immerses students in the scientific process, enhancing their thinking and reasoning abilities. In order for students to develop a high-quality argument, they must include a rebuttal (e.g., Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000); however, it is difficult for students to independently construct arguments with rebuttals, therefore teachers must provide explicit instruction, as well as opportunities for practice (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). This study sought to develop instructional strategies for teaching primary students to construct arguments with rebuttals; to introduce these strategies in primary science lessons; and to clarify the overall effectiveness of these strategies. The participants were 119 sixth-grade students (11–12 years old) from three classes at a primary school. Four instructional strategies were used during the design phase, and eight strategies were used during the implementation phase. In order to evaluate whether the students’ argumentation skills improved following these instructional strategies, an argument task related to the unit’s content was incorporated at the end of the lessons. Exceeding 75% students were able to construct arguments with rebuttals. Thus, the instructional strategies proposed in this study were effective at improving argumentation skills. This work offers exploratory research in this area, yet there is room for further examination of the improvement of instructional strategies regarding reasoning for rebuttals. Keywords: instructional strategies, arguments with rebuttals, primary students

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The importance of fostering argumentation skills in science education has been worldwide (Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008), as arguing, or reasoning, is considered an essential process in the construction of scientific knowledge and the performance of critical investigations (e.g., Kuhn, 2010). A high-quality argument is considered to be one that includes a rebuttal (e.g., Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000). Developing skill with rebuttal arguments is difficult for students to independently, as the construction of arguments with rebuttals needs to be directly taught, then frequently practiced (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). Although in recent years there has been research regarding instructional strategies that promote writing rebuttals in order to improve the quality of an argument, much of this research targets teachers and secondary school students (e.g., Iordanou, 2010; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). Although the importance of beginning to foster skill with rebuttal arguments in primary school has been highlighted (Zembal-Saul, McNeill, & Hershberger, 2012), the instructional strategies for achieving this goal have not yet been clarified. Therefore, this study aims to develop instructional strategies for teaching primary students to construct arguments with rebuttals and evaluate the overall effectiveness of those strategies.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The Structure of Argumentation Skills 997

Strand 7


Krajcik and McNeill (2009) explained the levels of complexity and each level’s structure of argumentation. There are five variations: Variation 1 consists of claim and evidence; Variation 2 consists of claim, evidence, and reasoning; Variation 3 consists of claim, evidence, and reasoning, stating that evidence must be appropriate and sufficient; Variation 4 consists of claim, appropriate and sufficient evidence, and multiple levels of reasoning; and Variation 5, the most complex argument, consists of all of the Variation 4 components, accompanied by a rebuttal. The variation targeted in this study is Variation 5 proposed by Krajcik and McNeill (2009): that is, the highest level argument including a rebuttal. McNeill and Krajcik (2011) stated that fostering argument construction skills including rebuttals not only helps students with science class content, but also helps them to better evaluate topics in everyday contexts. Thus, providing opportunities for learners to practice their argumentation skills is a very important process in constructing scientific knowledge (Driver et al., 2000).

Instructional Strategies for Fostering Argumentation Skills McNeill and Krajcik (2011) conducted research in which students developed and constructed arguments. In doing so, they suggested considerations for designing learning tasks and teaching strategies for supporting students. Yamamoto et al. (2013) integrated these considerations and strategies into instructional strategies for design phase and implementation phase. Instructional strategies for design phase are as follows: a) setting the curriculum goal; b) framing the argument; c) posting the argument structure; d) scaffolding with worksheets. Instructional strategies for implementation phase are as follows: a) discussing the framework; b) connecting to everyday examples; c) developing a rationale; d) connecting to other content areas; e) modelling and critiquing examples; f) providing students with feedback; g) having students engage in peer critiques; and h) debating student examples.

RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN Research Question The research question of this study was, “How can primary students’ argumentation skills be fostered by the instructional strategies which were developed in this study?”

Participants The participants were 119 sixth-grade students (11–12 years old) from three classes at a primary school in Japan. After excluding those absent, the data for a total of 109 students were analysed. Participants were proficient in argument Variation 4; however, they had not been instructed on developing an argument with a rebuttal (Variation 5).

Context We developed specialized 12 instructional strategies teaching primary students to construct arguments with rebuttals based on McNeill and Krajcik (2011) and Yamamoto et al. (2013). The 12 instructional strategies were introduced in the lessons within a sixth-grade science unit, ‘Properties of Aqueous Solutions’. The first phase, design phase, included four teaching strategies. ‘Setting the curriculum goal’ was the first of these strategies. The goals were to be able to: a) understand that in an aqueous solution, there are acidic, alkaline, and neutral substances; substances that dissolve gas; and substances that change metals; and b) explain an argument for the identification of an aqueous solution. The second strategy was ‘framing the argument’, along with a rebuttal. The argument composition elements were claim, evidence (appropriate, sufficient), reasoning (multiple), and rebuttal. The rebuttal was to consist of a claim to be rebutted, evidence for rebuttal, and reasoning for rebuttal. The third strategy was ‘posting the argument structure’ on the science classroom wall. The fourth strategy was ‘worksheet scaffolding’; the layout of the worksheet for explaining the argument reflected each component of the explanation (see Figure 1).

998

Strand 7

Evidence（Data）


Claim（Answer of Question）

Reasoning

Claim for rebuttal

Evidence for rebuttal

(Data)

Reasoning for rebuttal

（Explanation for why the evidence supports the claim using scientific principles.）

Figure 1. Worksheet scaffolding. The layout of the worksheet for explaining the argument reflected each component of the explanation.

The second phase, implementation phase, included eight strategies. In the first strategy, ‘discussing the framework’, the argument structure was explained to students using the experiment results as an example. In ‘connecting to everyday examples’, students were introduced to a conversational strategy utilizing a rebuttal when deciding what games to play. In ‘providing a rationale’, students were taught that it is necessary to include a rebuttal in an argument. In ‘connecting to other content areas’, students learned that rebuttals could also be applied to the Japanese language studies. In ‘modelling and critiquing examples’, the teacher modelled an example argument with a rebuttal on the topic of field trip activities. Both the feedback and peer critique strategies are self-explanatory: the teacher provided feedback to students, and students peer-reviewed each other’s work. Figure 2 shows students providing each other with feedback on an argument’s strengths and weaknesses. Last, in ‘debating student examples’, all of the students discussed the appropriateness of the argument as explained in the argument task. The unit spanned from late October 2013 to late November 2013. A total of 15 instructional hours were spent on the unit (one hour of instruction equalled 45 minutes of real time). The three classes were all taught by the same instructor and followed the same curriculum.

Data Source In this study, we evaluate whether the students’ argumentation skills improved. Free response questions were used. After presenting four experiments and their results, which the students had studied in the unit, the following questions were posed: ‘Which of the three aqueous solutions in this investigation is boric acid? Why do you think so? Please write a scientific explanation.’ These were free response questions; the students were given 15 minutes to

999

Strand 7


Figure 2. Students engaged in peer critique. Students providing each other with feedback on an argument’s strengths and weaknesses.

respond. Answers were judged to be correct if the following conditions were met and were all correctly and scientifically explained: claim, evidence (appropriateness, sufficiency), reasoning (multiple components), claim for rebuttal, evidence for rebuttal, and reasoning for rebuttal.

Analysis Table 1 presents the evaluation rubric created for scoring. The full score for the claim was one point. The full scores for appropriateness of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, multiple lines of reasoning, claim for rebuttal, evidence for rebuttal, and reasoning for rebuttal were two points. Two independent coders assessed the students’ written arguments. Each coder has knowledge of research in primary science teaching and learning. The concordance rate was 99.9%. Discrepancies in the scores were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS Table 2 shows the percentage of students who received full marks for the argument task. The percentage score of reasoning for the rebuttal was 55%. Excluding reasoning for rebuttal, the percentage scores were all above 75%. The two representative incorrect descriptions were as follows: no reasoning relating to the evidence was given or the reasoning was explained, but it was scientifically incorrect. About 50% of the children did not receive the full two points due to the first reason, and about 40% of the children did not receive the full two points due to the second reason. 1 000

Strand 7


Table 1 Argument Task Rubric Component Claim

Evidence (Appropriateness)

Points 1 0

There is no description corresponding to the above statement.

2

Incorrect evidence corresponding to the following is not described (regardless of the presence or amount of correct evidence): ・(In result 1) there was nothing left in any of the aqueous solutions after filtering the aqueous solutions A, B, and C. ・ (In result 3), solution B was the heaviest after measuring 100 mL of aqueous solutions A, B, and C. One piece of the above incorrect evidence is described (regardless of the presence or amount of correct evidence). Two pieces of the above incorrect evidence are described (regardless of the presence or amount of correct evidence).

1 0 Evidence (Sufficiency)

2

1 0 Reasoning (Multiple)

2

1 0 Claim for Rebuttal

2

1 0 Evidence for Rebuttal

2

1 0 Reasoning for Rebuttal

Criteria There is a description corresponding to the following: ・(Boric acid) is C.

2

1 0

There are two descriptions corresponding to the following (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect evidence): ・(In result 2) After evaporating aqueous solutions A, B, and C, white powder remained in solutions B and C. ・(In result 4) After dissolving magnesium (Mg) in aqueous solutions A, B, and C, it was soluble in solutions A and C. There is one description corresponding to the above (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect evidence). There are no descriptions corresponding to the above (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect evidence). There are two descriptions corresponding to the following (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect reasoning): ・Determined that solids emerge after evaporating aqueous solutions in which solids have been dissolved. ・Determined that boric acid dissolves magnesium. There is one description corresponding to the above (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect reasoning). There are no descriptions corresponding to the above (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect reasoning). There are descriptions corresponding to the following: ・A is not boric acid. ・B is not boric acid. There is one description corresponding to the above statements. There are no descriptions corresponding to the above statements. Two pieces of evidence corresponding to the following are described: ・ (In result 2) Nothing remained in solution A after evaporating aqueous solutions A, B, and C. ・ (In result 4) Magnesium (Mg) did not dissolve in aqueous solution B (after dissolving magnesium in solutions A, B, and C). One piece of evidence corresponding to the above is described (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect evidence). There is no evidence corresponding to the above (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect evidence). There are two descriptions corresponding to the following (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect reasoning): ・Determined that nothing remains after evaporating aqueous solutions in which gases have been dissolved. ・Determined that limewater does not dissolve magnesium (Mg). There is one description corresponding to the above (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect reasoning). There are no descriptions corresponding to the above (regardless of the presence or amount of incorrect reasoning).

1 001

Strand 7


Table 2 Results of Argument Task Component Percent Claim 1 00 Evidence (Appropriateness) 98.2 Evidence (Sufficiency) 84.4 Reasoning (Multiple) 76.1 Claim for Rebuttal 92.7 Evidence for Rebuttal 87.2 Reasoning for Rebuttal 55.0 Note: N = 109; numbers represent the percentage of students who received full marks.

CONCLUSION Taking into account these results, we found that most students were able to construct an argument with a rebuttal as a result of the instructional strategies used. So, we believe that the study as a whole demonstrates the benefits of teaching rebuttal skills with argumentation skills in science education. However, students had difficulty providing reasoning for their rebuttals. We therefore speculate that the instructional strategies were insufficient. This work offers exploratory research in the argumentation skills, but improvement of instructional strategies regarding reasoning for rebuttals must be explored in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15H02916.

REFERENCES Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne. J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, 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. Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–327. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. Krajcik, J., & McNeill, K. L. (2009). Designing instructional materials to support students’ in writing scientific explanations: Using evidence and reasoning across the middle school years. Paper presented at NARST 2009 Annual International Conference., Garden Grove, CA. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810– 824．

1 002

Strand 7


McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5 — 8 students in constructing explanation in science. Boston, MA: Pearson. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. Yamamoto, T., Sakamoto, M., Yamaguchi, E., Nishigaki, J., Muratsu, K., Inagaki, S., & Kamiyama, S. (2013). Teaching strategies of argument to elementary school children: through practice in the unit of ‘‘pendulum movement’’ (in Japanese). Journal of Research in Science Education, 53(3), 471-484. Zembal-Saul, C. L., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2012). What's your evidence?: Engaging K–5 children in constructing explanations in science. Boston, MA: Pearson.

1 003

Strand 7


STUDENTS’ DECISION-MAKING ON ISSUES OF SUSTAINABILITY – BEYOND RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY Hannes Sander and Dietmar Höttecke University of Hamburg, Faculty of Education, Germany Abstract: Students’ judgment and decision-making is an important aspect of scientific literacy and a major curricular objective in science teaching. Hence, it is widely explored in science education research. Most research done in this field, especially in Germany, builds upon the assumption that rational choice theory (RCT) adequately describes students’ decision-making. In contrast results from psychological research (e.g. Haidt, 2001) indicate how intuitions and emotions essentially affect a person’s judgment and decision-making. Moreover, from a sociological perspective (e.g. Bourdieu, 1983) a person’s habitus determines his/her perception, judgments and actions. Both theoretical strands contradict RCT, but are barely reflected in current science education research about students’ judgment and decision-making. This study avoids making any strong assumptions about the rationality of students. Students’ perspectives on socio-scientific issues with special focus on sustainability were explored. A qualitative approach based on documentary method was chosen to explore the tacit dimensions of students’ judgment and decision-making. Focused, semi-structured interviews with a heterogeneous sample of 29 German high-school students were conducted. In the beginning of each interview short dilemma-like audio-vignettes were presented. They demonstrate complex and undecided issues concerning sustainability. Data analysis was based on documentary method, which allows for a reconstruction of students’ so called orientations. From the theoretical perspective of documentary method orientations are a part of the tacit and atheoretical knowledge, which is structuring students’ judgment and decision-making. Here we present a choice of results, in particular a case study of a single student as well as a comprehensive typology of orientations based on the whole sample. Based on these results, the interdependence of any specific SSI and students’ ways of dealing with them is briefly discussed. Our results strongly confirm the assumption that RCT is a limited framework for describing and analyzing how students are making judgments and decisions on sustainability issues. Keywords: decision-making, qualitative research, documentary method, socio-scientific issues

INTRODUCTION Students’ judgment and decision-making is an important aspect of scientific literacy and a major curricular objective in science teaching (e.g. Grace & Ratcliffe, 2002). Hence, it is widely explored in science education research. But despite theoretical ideas from psychology (e.g. dual-processing accounts of cognition and decision-making) and sociology (e.g. Bourdieu’s theory of habitus), current models and research mainly build upon rational choice theory (RCT, see for example Eggert & Bögeholz, 2010; for a review see Steffen & Hößle, 2014). The psychological concept of intuition and the sociological concept of habitus are barely reflected in these models and current research in science education. Instead of building on RCT, this study avoids making any strong assumptions about if and to which extend students might be driven by rationality when making decisions concerning socio-scientific issues. Instead, students’ perspectives on various socio-scientific issues were explored using a qualitative approach. This study therefore aims at a reconstruction of what actually guides students’ decision-making – if not RCT. According to the model of didactical reconstruction

1 004

Strand 7


(Duit, Gropengießer, Kattmann, Komorek & Parchmann, 2012), this perspective has to be taken into account in designing educational settings. First, three theoretical perspectives on decision-making will be outlined, and then the design of the empirical study and the methods used will be explained. Finally, a choice of our results will be presented and discussed.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Decision-making is researched by various scientific disciplines, psychology and sociology first and foremost. Accordingly, these two perspectives on decision-making will be highlighted as well as the perspective of science education research. From a contemporary psychological perspective, decision-making can be framed as a process involving different modes of thought (Thompson, 2013). For example, Haidt (2001) points out that moral judgments are based on intuitions. This mode of thought is often called “System 1” (Evans & Stanovich, 2013, p. 224). It is mainly characterized as unconscious, draws on associative thinking, is fast and does not require extensive working memory. When making a judgment or decision based on system 1, only the results of the process come to mind, as gut feeling and respectively intuitions. “System 2” is characterized by reflective and analytical thinking (ibid.). It is mainly used to justify a judgment which has already been made. It requires working-memory, acts consciously and is rule-based. In Haidt’s (2001) view, a judgment is therefore not a product of argumentation or the usage of elaborated decision-making strategies. In contrast, it is the product of an unconscious process using implicit knowledge, where only the result comes to mind in form of intuitions. If judgments as a result of such intuitive processes will be justified at all, then Haidt (2001) calls this process post-hoc justification. Analytical reasoning instead is only applied on rare occasions (Haidt & Bjorklund, 2008). A sociological perspective on judgment and decision-making can be informed by Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. Bourdieu states that “[t]he habitus, a product of history, produces individual and collective practices […]. It ensures the active presence of past experiences, which, deposited in each organism in the form of schemes of perception, thought and action, tend to guarantee the 'correctness' of practices and their constancy over time, more reliably than all formal rules and explicit norms.” (Bourdieu 1990, p. 54; emphasize by the authors) The important point here is that the habitus acts as a ‘generative principle‘ or – to put in different words - as a structuring structure, which guides individual and collective practices. In this sense, the habitus shapes ones thinking, speaking and acting as an enabling as well as a limiting structure. It can be conceptualized as an instance of collectivity in each individual human being. In this manner, it is mainly unconscious and tacit. It provides us with certain, individual schemes of perception, thought and action, which guide actual human behavior often stronger than any formal and explicit rules, norms or even deliberate calculation of options. Like any other social process, decision-making is guided by implicit, socio-historical knowledge – in other words: the habitus provides us with certain ways of judgment (Vogd, 2004). As Bourdieu puts it: There is nothing like ‘universal rationality‘ or something alike. Instead, each social field has its own kind of rationality. In this manner, sociology questions the fundamental assumptions of rational choice theory and emphasizes a tacit, socio-historical perspective on decision-making. Science education research of the recent two decades has focused socio-scientific issues (SSI). Concerning this body of research, students’ patterns of argumentation (e.g. Patronis, Potari & Spiliotopoulou, 1999), informal reasoning (e.g. Sadler, 2004) and decision-making (e.g. Eggert & Bögeholz, 2010) have been explored intensively. The results are mixed: 1 005

Strand 7


scientific knowledge is not as important in actual decision-making as for example personal factors (e.g. Ratcliffe, 1997; Grace & Ratcliffe, 2002; Albe, 2008), but seems to be a prerequisite for understanding an SSI (Nielsen, 2012). Students do not evaluate an argument, but the source of an argument (Kolstø, 2001), while epistemological beliefs do not play a major role in their informal reasoning and argumentation (Bell & Lederman, 2003; Albe, 2008). Explicit training in decision-making strategies can foster decision-making (e.g. Böttcher & Meisert, 2013; Gresch, Hasselhorn & Bögeholz, 2013). Furthermore, students’ decision-making concerning SSI seems to be context-dependent. In a review, Sadler (2004) pointed out that one can distinguish local issues with direct impact on the students and general issues with global impact to account for the mixed results of preceding research. He concludes that the effect of personal experiences differs from local to global issues. In local contexts, personal factors “were held in abeyance from scientific knowledge” (ibid., p. 531) whereas in global contexts personal factors “seemed to mediate scientific knowledge” (ibid.).

DESIGN AND METHODS To get to know the students’ perspectives on various SSI focusing issues of sustainability, 29 focused interviews were conducted. The heterogeneity of the sample was high concerning gender, age (12-19), socio-economic background (different schools and school-types from different neighborhoods) and students’ engagement in ecology groups. The sampling-strategy followed theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Four different SSI were developed and presented in the form of audio-vignettes – or short audio-plays – to the students (Sander & Höttecke, 2014). Each vignette started with a short description of the SSI followed by different persons discussing an SSI with each other. An example is shown below. The vignettes fit a theoretical context-model (Hößle & Menthe, 2013). Their curricular and content validity as well as their model-fit was ensured by an expert-review (science teachers, researchers from science education, advanced university students). The context of the different vignettes was varied systematically along the model. According to the model, the four vignettes can be clustered into two groups: political decision-making scenarios where a group of experts makes a political decision showing a focus on long-term, distant consequences. The second group consists of individual decisionmaking scenarios where a group of laymen makes an individual decision. Short-term, nearby consequences are in the focus of the latter vignettes. Documentary method was applied as an analytical framework (e.g. Bohnsack, Pfaff, & Weller, 2010; Ruhrig & Höttecke, 2015). This qualitative method draws on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge. Hence, the method makes a distinction between conjunctive and objective knowledge. The conjunctive knowledge refers to implicit knowledge gained in the past experiences, whereas the objective knowledge refers to the objective, inter-individual meaning. While speaking about a particular issue, one always uses both kinds of knowledge. Our main assumption is that the conjunctive knowledge structures the way somebody talks about something. In this manner, the conjunctive or implicit knowledge influences one’s way of talking about something. Because it serves an orienting function for one’s thinking, acting and speaking, in terms of documentary method the structure of the conjunctive knowledge is called an orientation. The analysis of the way one talks about something enables access to the orientations guiding students’ decisionmaking. All interviews conducted are comprehensively transcribed. Interpretations are obtained by applying multiple inner- and cross-case comparisons. Homologies as well as heteronomies were identified throughout the sample. Finally, cases were classified and grouped together

1 006

Strand 7


according their homological or heterogeneous character regarding emerging orientations. Validity was established discursively by comparing, discussing and refining interpretations in multiple groups of experts. One group consisted of experts from science education while three other groups consisted of experts from documentary method. On these grounds, the primary research-question can be formulated as follows: Which implicit orientations guide students’ decision-making on issues of sustainability? A second researchquestion refers to the context-dependency of decision-making pointed out by Sadler (2004). It focuses the effect of the context of a given SSI. According to Hößle & Menthe (2013), every decision-making scenario – and therefore each SSI – can be characterized alongside different dimensions. As mentioned above, two different types of scenarios were presented to the students. Accordingly, the second research question was: Which interdependencies between a given SSI and actual decision-making can be found?

RESULTS Maximal contrasting cases were identified inductively. Students in our sample dealt with the vignettes in quite different ways. The modes of dealing include intuitive judgments based on personal experiences, analytic judgments with emotional disturbances, elaborations of certain concepts presented in the vignettes and associations with different parts of the vignettes. In some cases the personal experiences even impeded a rational examination of the SSI. To give an impression of the results, the introduction of one vignette is presented first. Afterwards, a short case-study (‘Hugo’) is presented. Finally, further results are summed up in terms of a typology.

An example of a SSI One of the vignettes presents a hearing of the European commission concerning the transportation and import of fruits like mango for instance by aircraft across long distances (so-called ‘flight fruit’). Conflicting positions of a salesman, a scientist, an environmentalist and two farmers (from Europe and Africa) on the issue are presented. Before showing this discussion, the following introduction is presented to the students: “The European commission discusses with various experts concerning the prohibition of so called flight fruit. This law should be implemented in 2020. The commission justifies this by saying that the fruit is transported by aircraft to Europe, which in turn amplifies climate change due to aircraft’s carbon dioxide emissions. The commission questions various experts.” (Introduction, vignette ‘flight fruit’) Afterwards, the hearing of the European commission is shown. Four different vignettes were presented to each single student. Reconstructions of any students’ orientation are based on their responses to all of the four vignettes. To keep things simple, the case study mostly presents Hugo’s thoughts concerning the vignette presented above. Notwithstanding, similar patterns can be found when Hugo talks about the other vignettes. Please note that all quotations only illustrate our results since results are based on extended interpretations of the data, which cannot be presented in detail here. Furthermore, transcripts presented here were translated from German. Therefore, the meaning might have slightly changed. A pause is transliterated as “(.)”.

A case study: Hugo Hugo is a sixteen year old German high-school student. After the above shown introduction of the vignette, the interviewer asks Hugo the first question: “Interviewer: What are your spontaneous thoughts about the situation?

1 007

Strand 7


Hugo: (2) so (.) so 2020 and flight fruit (2) without this kind of fruit there wouldn‘t be any bananas here in Germany and something like that, I think. And so to speak we would have a worse situation.” (Hugo, vignette ‘flight fruit’) Hugo frames the situation presented in the vignette as a 1-dimensional problem: the consequences of a prohibition are certain (“without this… there wouldn‘t …”) and obvious. Furthermore, Hugo frames the consequences as one-dimensional: they will only affect people in Europe without side effects. In contrast, there is no uncertainty or disbelief in his assertions, the consequences are very certain and clear (“we would have a worse situation”). Therefore, there is no need for a deeper analysis of the problem from Hugo’s point of view. In this manner, he does not think about other dimensions or other possible solutions of the problem posed in the vignette. Taking other parts of the interview into account, one can say that Hugo does not realize the complexity of the problem. At the end of the interview, concerning another vignette, Hugo pins it down: “Hugo: There are different opinions shown [in the vignette]. And they… They contradict each other. But all opinions are trustworthy – at least they seem to be. Everyone says the right thing. But one overlaps the other. And that can’t be true!” (Hugo, last vignette dealing with climate engineering) This quote shows Hugo’s view on the problems pointed out in the vignette: For the first time he realizes the complexity – but he doubts if this can be true. Another facet of his orientation is his relationship to school. After he mentioned a specific situation at school, the interviewer asks him to circumstantiate this situation: “Interviewer: Can you tell me what happened in class in detail? Hugo: Yes. We had this for about two weeks, environmental protection. We saw a movie fro- (2) with Al Gore. Everything was explained there. Afterwards, our teacher requested us to think about ideas (2) HOW to rescue the environment. (2) This [to raise taxes on fuel] was the best idea.” (Hugo, vignette ‘flight fruit’) School is associated here with passivity (“was explained“) and compulsion (“we had“, “requested us“). The teacher sets the rules the students have to obey. To put it in another way, Hugo is in opposition to school, he doesn‘t like it – also because of the fact that school seems to be a place of complexity and jabbering for him. To sum it up, Hugo is a high-school-student, but school is not a place he appreciates very much. In contrast, school is a place of complexity – and this is something Hugo does not realize in most vignettes. These two facets are structuring the whole interview; they serve an orientational function for Hugo. Therefore, they are called his orientations.

Typology of orientations As shown above, Hugo is an example of a student who does not see complexity and avoids it respectively. There are other students in the sample who are dealing with the SSI in a similar way as Hugo does. Thus, this kind of orientation is abstracted as reductionism, because these students cannot or do not want to see the inherent complexity of the SSI presented. Therefore, the complexity is reduced. Looking at the other students of the sample, a typology of different orientations was established. Hereafter, they are briefly summarized:

1 008

Strand 7










The second type rationalism is basically the opposite of Hugo: Complexity is esteemed; all possible options are evaluated in great detail using abstract knowledge and scientific concepts. Responsibility for action is mainly seen on politics. Politicians can in this view change the future to the better. Characteristic for this type is the usage of thought-experiments. The third type is called hedonism. Students of this type focus mainly on their own well-being and pleasure. For instance, in the case of the above shown vignette ‘flight fruit’, their main concern is on their own consumption of flight fruit. They do not bring up any societal considerations or reflect on the well-being of future generations. This view is associated with a strong emphasis on the individual self; sustainability is not an issue. The fourth type is called optimization. Students of this type try to optimize everything: their own self, e.g. by learning certain languages to get a good job in the future, society and technology (for instance, cars should be optimized to be more efficient). In this view, everything – a person, society or technology - can – and has to! - be optimized. Characteristic for the fifth type pessimistic fatalism is that the future is inherently bad. The current economy and society are kind of enigmatic to the students and resist any modification. One student of this type proposes a solution to improve the world: the same worldview of everyone – but that is unrealistic in this point of view.

These are the distinct orientations that served as a structure behind the assertions of the students concerning the four SSI presented to them. In terms of documentary method, they serve an orientational function when talking about such topics. In this manner, they can be thought of as orientations and aspects of a broader habitus in Bourdieu’s sense respectively.

The effect of context Finally, the effect of an SSI’s context will be summarized. As explained above, the four vignettes can be distinguished as either personal decision-making scenarios or political decision-making scenarios (where the vignette ‘flight fruit’ is an example). Accordingly, the effects reconstructed are: (a) Concerning the personal decision-making scenarios, gender-stereotypes were an important factor. For instance, the people shown in the vignettes were compared to the respective stereotype. In many cases, one’s own experiences guided decision-making about the issues at stake – and in many cases an already made judgment made a reanalysis of the problem obsolete. (b) Comparing all interviews, a main result of our study is that students tend to evaluate an SSI in a rational manner only, if they did not have any own experiences with the issue at stake. This was mainly the case in fictitious, political decision-making scenarios like the vignette ‘flight fruit’. There the students did not possess any own experiences. A neutral, rational evaluation was impeded by a personal involvement and past experiences. For example, Hugo already made a decision between different modes of transportation for a city trip. One SSI addressed this issue – but Hugo did not think of a solution once again. Instead, he reconfirmed his already made judgment. (c) One of the SSI presented to the students made strong statements about interventions in nature. This encompassed proposals like using chemicals in the atmosphere to reduce the greenhouse effect. Concerning this SSI, concepts of nature and technology (e.g. ‘technology is inherently bad’, ‘nature has to stay untouched’ etc.) played an important role in students’ decision-making.

1 009

Strand 7


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The study has shed some light on students’ perspectives on SSI located in the context of sustainable development. It became evident that in most of the cases personal experiences and previously made decisions have strongly shaped and guided their decision-making. Furthermore, in some cases these personal experiences even impeded a rational examination of the SSI. These findings have implications for further development and research. Future curricular development for learning with SSI in science education has to take the role of students’ intuitions and emotions into account. Students’ intuitive ideas may serve as a starting-point for explicitly exploring and reflecting their judgment and decision-making. This has to be taken into account as well, if curriculum material for this field of learning science will be designed (e.g. Dittmer, Gebhard, Mielke, & Oschatz, 2010). The described typology may serve as a starting point here. Moreover, our findings are challenging the validity of current models of decision-making. Most of these models (e.g. Eggert & Bögeholz, 2010) are based on rational choice theory. Decision-making is modeled in terms of how elaborated the particular use of rational-choice based decision-making strategies was. Our findings indicate that even when students possess elaborated strategies (as can be shown in some cases), personal experiences and biographical perspectives may hinder their enactment. Finally, decision-making in our study appeared to be context-dependent, as Sadler (2004) has noted earlier. This calls for a careful analysis of a SSI used in research and teaching.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study was founded by a scholarship granted by the German Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, DBU).

REFERENCES Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 805–827. Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352– 377. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Opladen, Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich. Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of Direct and Indirect Instruction on Fostering Decision-Making Competence in Socioscientific Issues. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 479–506. Bourdieu, Pierre (1983). Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Bourdieu, Pierre (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity. Dittmer, A., Gebhard, U., Mielke, R., & Oschatz, K. (2010). Thinking about Science - The Importance of Intuitive Ideas for Meaningful Learning. In S. Dolinšek und T. Lyons (Eds.), Socio-cultural and human values in science and technology education. Proceedings of the XIV IOSTE Conference (pp. 1334-1336). Ljubljana: Institute for Innovation and Development of University. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The Model of Educational Reconstruction – a Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning Science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe (pp. 13-37). XXX: SensePublishers.

1 010

Strand 7


Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students’ Use of Decision-Making Strategies With Regard to Socioscientific Issues: An Application of the Rasch Partial Credit Model. Science Education, 94(2), 230–258. Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishers. Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157–1169. Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in Decision-making Strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587–2607. Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgement. Psychological Review, 118(4), 814–834. Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social Intuitionists Answer Six Questions About Moral Psychology. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 181217). Cambridge, London: MIT Press. Hößle, C., & Menthe, J. (2013). Urteilen und Entscheiden im Kontext Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsklärung. In J. Menthe, D. Höttecke, I. Eilks & C. Hößle (Eds.), Handeln in Zeiten des Klimawandels - Bewerten Lernen als Bildungsaufgabe (pp. 35-65). Münster: Waxmann. Kolstø, S. (2001). 'To trust or not to trust, …' - pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901. Nielsen, J. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decisionmaking on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182. Ruhrig, J., & Höttecke, D. (2015). Components of Science Teachers’ Professional Competence and Their Orientational Frameworks when Dealing with Uncertain Evidence in Science Teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 447-465. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. Sander, H., & Höttecke, D. (2014). Vignetten zur qualitativen Untersuchung von Urteilsprozessen bei SchülerInnen. PhyDid B - Didaktik der Physik - Beiträge zur DPG-Frühjahrstagung. Steffen, B., & Hößle, C. (2014). Decision-making competence in biology education: Implementation into German curricula in relation to international approaches. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10, 343-355. Thompson, V. (2013). Why It Matters: The Implications of Autonomous Processes for Dual Process Theories-Commentary on Evans & Stanovich (2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 253–256. Vogd, W. (2004): Ärztliche Entscheidungsfindung im Krankenhaus. Komplexe Fallproblematiken im Spannungsfeld von Patienteninteressen und administrativorganisatorischen Bedingungen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 33(1), 26–47.

1 011

Strand 7


THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY TO REFLECT THE POLITICAL AND ETHICAL DISCURSIVE FORMATION IN THE SCIENCE EDUCATION Adriana Bortoletto and Washington Luiz Pacheco de Carvalho State University of São Paulo – UNESP – Physics and Chemistry Departament

Abstract: The objective of this research is to understand how the process of participating in a debate can result in different types of learning, once our science students generally expect to learn just aspects related to the objective world in science classes. The research was undertook in a public high school, located in State of São Paulo. The class was composed by students with fourteen years old. The establishment of data occurred during the development of a short course based on the approach sociocientific issues. The course was Efficiency Energy and consisted of five teaching modules, whose topics were respectively: Energy and Human Activity, Energy and Environmental Impacts: the different forms of power generation in Brazil, Socioeconomic Development and Energy, Renewable and Alternative Energy, Energy Efficiency. The data consisted of audio recordings. Theory of Communicative Action by Jürgen Habermas were our theoretical analysis of data. The results indicate the need to plan teaching strategies that enhance the development of a discourse ethics. This is because students need to recognize the speech act as a moment of action, seeking understanding collective front to the subject discussed. We understand and we argue that the process of enculturation scientific staff not only in the field of phenomenology in physics or other scientific disciplines, but rather in a moral and ethical discourse competence for participation in public spheres of decision. Keywords: Classroom Discourse, Science Education, Values in Science Education

INTRODUCTION The necessity of cultural formation of young people and adults is a value that has been highly shared among researchers in science education in the last decades (Feinstein,2015; Pedretti, Bencze, Hewitt, Romkey, & Jivraj 2008; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). This notion encompasses the idea that the impacts of science and technology in our lives are so remarkable that they have to be deeply considered in an education for citizenship. In this sense, a systemic formation is needed in order to have effective engagement of people in debates involving socioscientific issues (SSI). As the nature of what is called socioscientific issues comprises moral, ethical, political, economic and scientific dilemmas.( Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003, Zeidler & Keefer, 2003), the participation in debates about them requires an understanding of various dimensions of the human knowledge. In order to participate in a collective discussion involving SSI, it´s fundamental that participants learn how to communicate ideas, how to defend them and to recognize the speech of other participants in a debate.

1 012

Strand 7


In this conjuncture, the approach of socio-scientific issues is an alternative to the establishment of debate in science classes. It involves actions for the recognition, interpretation and argumentation on controversies concerning the relations between science, technology, society and environment for the development of critical thinking. These new paths involve social responsibility, ethical and moral reasoning and elements of the nature of science and technology; relate to the formation of political willingness in a free communication context coercions, facing the collective understanding of social actors. Thus, for collective decision making, or for the search of a collective construction of a point of view, it is necessary to know how to construct arguments based on humanistic and scientific knowledge, but specifically is necessary that participants develop a discursive ethics. The objective of this research is to understand how the process of participating in a debate can result in different types of learning, once our science students generally expect to learn just aspects related to the objective world in science classes.

Action Communicative Theory In the Habermasian perspective, language has a fundamental role in the construction of knowledge and understanding of the world. For that to occur in areas related to Science and technology it is important to consider that people involved in the intersubjective communication process are required to be communicatively and linguistically competent. Linguistic competence is associated with the capacity of each person to produce syntactically coherent sentences. On the other hand, communication competence is associated to the speaker’s ability in using language to express intentions of attempting to understand something of the world along with his or her ability to understand, and to follow normative presuppositions that guide the communicational context to develop discursive ethics in a group of speakers and listeners. Table 1: Communication Mode, (Habermas, 2002, p.88) Communication Speech Act Theme Mode Cognitive

Constative

Interative

Regulative

Expressive

Confessions

Propositional Contents Intersubjective Relations Speaker´s Intentions

Thematic Validity Pretenses Truth Agreement/accord Sincerity

In the Habermasian perspective the normative presuppositions that guide the communicative context are denominated validity claim, and they are associated with the speech acts that compose the discourse structure. For example, if we are discussing normative aspects that regulate the group interaction in which we participate, we use regulative speech acts; if we are discussing about theories, scientific or humanistic concepts and laws the speech acts are constatives; and when participants claim personal aspects, the speech act is classified as expressive, because it represents a personal experience.

1 013

Strand 7


Each speech act represents a communication mode. For example, the cognitive communication mode is associated with constitutive speech act and its focus are the propositional contents.The claims of validity are raised in a discussion when a listener questions the speech act of the speaker. For example, in a physics class the student raises a truth claim when he questions the teacher about any scientific concept that it was not understood. Another example would be when the teacher raises an agreement pretension in the classroom because students break the “didatic contract” among them and with the teacher. Finally, the sincerity pretension is related with personal experiences of each participants of the communicative context. These experiences are related with the way that participants look at the lifeworld. Each time that validity pretension is questioned the argumentative discourse is instituted. For Habermas argumentative discourse is characterized as theoretical, practical (ethical and moral) and critical-therapeutical. Each one these discourse are directly associated with a speech act respectively ( Habermas, 2012a,2012b).

METHOD This research was developed in public high school localizated in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The class was composed by students with fourteen years old. The datas constitution happened during a course about Energy Efficient. This course was composed of five modules with the following titles: 1) Energy and human activity; 2) Energy and environmental impacts: several forms of electrical energy production in Brazil; 3) Socioeconomic development and energy; 4) Renewable and alternative forms of energy; 4) Energetic Efficiency (Bortoletto, 2009).

The data analyzed were extracted of the module Socio-Economic Development and Energy. Table 2: Module: 3) Socioeconomic development and energy. Source: Adapted (Bortoletto, 2009). Teaching set Socioeconomic development and energy Duration

Three classes (50 minutes each).

Objetives

Explore and analyze the concepts of human development and its relations with the consume of energy.

Didatic resources

Presentation of three texts: 1) “Rescuing the Human Development Concept from the Human Development Index: reflections on a New Agenda” by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (United Nations development economist); 2) the second text explores the concept of human development in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI), by José Goldemberg (physicist); 3) the third text presents considerations about the difficulties that some countries face to have access to energy.

Pedagogical actions

Reading. Analysis and production of written works, in pairs. Collective discussion.

Bellow, we illustrate the analyses with one example in the table 3.

1 014

Strand 7


Table 3: Illustration of the analysis of the public debate about HDI and Energy Speech Acts

Communication

Characteristics

Synthesis

Mode Teacher: All right people! Let´s begin! Teacher: Do you agree with the concept of energy in the text? Why?Speak to me what do you think interesting in this text? Student3: They show that has more energy and also show that these countries have more energy are more developed, has a better rate (HDI). Then you look at other countries that have no energy they have a worse rate (HDI)!

CognitiveInterative

Validity Pretension Accord/Agreement

At first the teacher organizes the classroom to the debate. She wants to call students' attention to the activity. This type Validity Pretension of actions is interative. – Truth – The teacher raises a Establishment validity pretension for argumentative classroom social discourse – organization and the Theorical Discourse students accept it. In a second moment, the teacher raises the subject of discussion in this case energy and human development. She makes a sequence of questions for students. That is, the validity pretense of truth is raised contesting the theoretical concepts of the text. The sequence of speech acts contains propositional and regulative contents.

Teacher: Okay! What were the criteria that he (author) put in the text? What he (author) considered for a population to have a good human development rate? Student 3: There are several things that they need to have like, social inclusion(...)

1 015

Strand 7


RESULTS The broad formation of these young people is directly related with will polítical formation and critic thinking. These two competencies in the Habermas' perspective, are associated with the concept of rationality. For Habermas (2012a), rationality is related how we use human knowledge. What the use of these rationalities implies the education of students? The political and critical formation, the union of scientific and humanistic culture, demands that young people know how to use these rationalities,ie, technical rationality (laws, theories, concepts,ie, systematized knowledge), ethical-existential racionality(personal experiencies from lifeworld) and accord/agreement racionality ( social interations, normatizations). Understand how students use the rationalities, that is, the way make use of knowledge in situations that it becomes necessary to use them is of most importance. The different forms of use the rationality are related to the perception that students have of the world. If the science classes, the use that teacher does of the knowledge is primarily technical, probably the student will develop this perception. Similarly happens with other disciplines of the basic school curriculum. Thus, it is important to recognize the significance of making use of knowledge due to the need, that is, the moments that characterize the moral, technical and ethical and existential use are important. If communicative situation, the speech acts to pass through of the three spheres we are developing a communicative ( Figure1) context that all participants are searching the understanding about theme and taking into consideration the discourse of all participants. That is, we are searching to ethical discourse.

Communicative Racionality - Understanding

Technical Rationality

Ethicalexistential

Accord/Agreement Racionality

Rationality

Figure1: IllustrationThe Uses of Racionalitys

1 016

Strand 7


The data presented in this study showed that the discourse of teacher was oriented towards a technical rationality, discussion of concepts. It is important to remember that the theoretical discussion (technical racionality) is valuable, but the speech must pass by the other spheres. Some elements like criticism, description, analysis, positioning, requests for clarification, explanations and justifications, did not so present in the speeches of the students. An understanding of this can be associated with two factors: 1) the technical discourse of the teacher who fomented this type of response; 2) moral development stage. Moral development stage, which is directly related to the perspective of communicative action and an ideal speech situation and symmetry. This relation is linked to moral development levels, according to Lawrence Kholberg. Thus, the communicative action is associated with post-conventional stage of interaction, while our students are in the conventional stage (Habermas, 2003). The science education for citizenship is intrinsically linked also with the social collaboration in situations of communicative processes. If we want our students to be able to participate in debates involving socioscientific situations directly related to personal life and community in which they live is important that they know and use the different types of rationality that are part of the relationship between man and society order to have the valued speeches.

REFERENCES Bortoletto, A. (2009).Temas Sociocientíficos: Análise de Processos Argumentativos no Contexto Escolar [Socioscientific Issues: Argumentative Process Analysis in the School Context] .Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Estadual paulista. Faculdade de Ciências, UNESP, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. Feinstein, N. (2015). Education, Communication and Science in the Public Sphere. Journal Research Science Teaching, 52, 2, p.145-163. Habermas, J. (2002). Racionalidade e Comunicação [On the Pragmatics of Communication]. Lisboa: Edições 70. Habermas, J. (2003). Consciência Moral e Agir Comunicativo [Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action]. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro. Habermas, J.(2012 a). Teoria da Ação Comunicativa:Vol.1. Racionalidade da ação e racionalização social [The Theory of communicative action: Vol.1. Reason and Racionalization of Society, Vol 1]. São Paulo. Martins Fontes. Habermas, J. (2012b). Teoria da Ação Comunicativa: Sobre a Crítica da Razão Funcionalista [The Theory of communicative action: Vol.2. Lifeword and System - A Critique of Functionalist Reason Vol 2]. São Paulo. Martins Fontes. Pedretti, E. G., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J.,Romkey, L. & Jivraj, A. (2008). Promoting issuebased STSE perspectives in science teacher education: problems of identity and ideology. Science & Education, 17(8), 941-960. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socioscientific issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Zeidler, D., & Keefer, M. (2003).The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations In: Zeidler, D. (Org.). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. (pp.07-38).The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

1 017

Strand 7


PRE-SERVICE PRIMARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND UNDERSTANDING OF ARGUMENTATION IN SCIENCE Carolina Martín1 and Sibel Erduran2 (1)

Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales. Universidad de Málaga (Spain). [email protected] (2) Department of Education and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences. University of Limerick (Ireland). [email protected] Abstract: Contemporary science education places a great emphasis on literacy in science and tecnology, with skills to participate decision-making about socio-cientific issues in everyday life. Argumentation or evidence-based reasoning is a significant tool in the realisation of decision-making and debate about socio-scientific issues. Yet, argumentation remains an unfamiliar pedagogical strategy for many science teachers including pre-service science teachers. The main purpose in this study is to investigate the Pre-service Primary Teachers’ perceptions and understanding of argumentation and discourse in science classrooms. In this work are presented the three parts of the questionnarie that was used to get it, and the quantitavie analysis of the first and second part of it. The questionnaire was answered by 72 Pre-service Primary Teachers in the academic course 2014/15 in a Spanish university. These students were beginnig to study the subject “Science Education”. All the questions in the questionnarie are based in a socio-cientific issue on the topic of energy. The results show that the majority of the participants identify the best and the worst argument but they experience difficulties in the intermediate positions where a more nuanced understanding of argument is required. They have some difficulties in identifying some components of an argument that could improve the quality of it. This knowledge is the first step to be able develop tools of teaching argumentation in Sciece Education. This study contributes to evidence the Preservice Primary Teachers’ argumentation knowledge and understanding of the language of argument, and shows the neccesity of designing specific sessions in their trainning based on argumentation where they can explore the components of an argument and develop knowledge and understanding of the language of argument. Keywords: Argumentation, Science Education, Pre-service Primary teachers.

INTRODUCTION Contemporary science education places a great emphasis on literacy in science and tecnology, with skills to participate decision-making about socio-cientific issues in everyday life (Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons & Howes, 2005). This means introducing in science teaching some of the processes and situations that occur in the social context, which favor the involvement of students in organizational processes of thinking, communicating ideas, adopting positions, and promote their confidence in the arguments supporting their own choices, at the same time develop respect for others communicate (Kolstø, 2001; Ratcliffe and Grace, 2003). Science education should contribute to the students get these skills and capacities and the argumentation is good way to get them, because argumentation is an effective way for students to develop conceptual and epistemic understanding of science (Erduran & JimenezAleixandre, 2012; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008). Through argumentation students learn to defend their own ideas and rebuttal to others, looking for why some options are correct and the others are wrong. Argumentation is a process of constructing a claim which is justified by data and warrants (Toulmin, 1958). The claim is an assertion. The next step is to identify the information that

1 018

Strand 7


could be used to support the claim with data. How the data are related to the claim is mediated by the warrant, and backing is addicional information that supports the warrant. Elements of an argument that counter the supporting data, warrants or backings are rebuttals. On the other hand, students need to be engaged in classroom discourse in an active way (Kaya, Erduran & Cetin, 2010) but the research demonstrates (e.g. Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; Duschl & Osborne, 2002) that students’ difficulties in constructing arguments and in participating in argumentative discourse result from teachers’ limited pedagogical skills in organizing activities supporting argumentation discourse. Also, some studies on teaching argumentation said teachers had difficulties managing discussions (Newton et al., 1999) There is limited work on how teachers themselves perceive argumentation in science classrooms (Erduran, Ardac & Yakmaci-Guzel, 2006; Kaya, Erduran & Cetin, 2012). Also, the researches show the belifs and the perceptions of the teachers has a big influence in their teaching (Pajares, 1992; Porlán et al., 2010). For these reasons, it is necessary to identify their perceptions and their dificulties on argumentation to design specific programs of teacher training to the teachers adquire knowledge about argumentation to modify their belifs, their perceptions. Therefore, the main purporse of this study is to identify pre-service primary teachers’ percepcions of argumentation in science education.

METHODOLOGY Sample and research questions The participants of this study have been 72 pre-service Primary teachers at a Spanish university. The group consisted of 50 women and 22 men. These students were studying the third course of the Grade of Primiry Teachers and until this course, they had not had any exposure to science education. Their ages varied from 43 to 19. The main purpose in this study is to investigate the Primary teachers’ perceptions of argumentation and discourse in science classrooms. Specifically, we have sought to answer the following research questions: 1. What are pre-service primary teachers’ understanding of argumentation in science? 2. How do pre-service primary teachers perceive the role as well as the teaching and learning of discourse in science classrooms? 3. How do pre-service primary teachers perceive the role as well as the teaching and learning of argumentation in science classrooms? A questionnaire was disseminated to the participants at the beginning of the subject “Science Education” module of the first semester when they had not had any knowledge about discourse and argumentation.

Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed to investigate the pre-service primary teachers’ understanding and perceptions of argumentation and discourse (Appendix A). Some of the questions were adapted of the work of Sampson & Clark (2006), Chin (2008) and Kaya, Erduran & Cetin (2012). All the questions in the questionnarie are based in a socio-scientific issue as energy issue. The questionnaire has three parts. In the first part, the main aim is to determine what pre-service teachers of primary think counts as a good argument. This part had three questions. In each one they will have a claim and six arguments and they should rank the differents arguments following a scale from 1 to 6 where 1 was the most convincing argument (data, explanation and rebuttal) and 6 was the least convincing argument (contradictory). The ranking 2 is an explanation with evidence, 3 contains evidence only, 4 contains warrant only and 5 appeals to authority. In the second part of the test, there are also three questions designed to determine what pre-service teachers of Primary think counts as a good challenge to an argument 1 019

Strand 7


(Appendix A). In each questions, the participants will have an argument and six challenges. They should rank the differents arguments following a scale from 1 to 6 where 1 was the strongest challenge to that argument (argument with backing) and 6 was the weakest challenge to the argument (emotive argument). The rest of the raking representative argument with warrant (2), argument with data (3), argument with claim (4) and rebuttals with only claim (5). And finally, in the last part, the aims are to know what the participants think about: 

The importance of discourse and quality of discourse.



The classroom activities encouraging scientific discourse and promoting argumentation and students’ attitudes to these activities.



The significance of argumentation in science education and about scaffolding learning in argumentation

There are ten questions: six of them closed and four are open-ended questions.

Data analysis aproach Quantitative and qualitative approach were carried out. In the first and second part of the questionnaire the frequencies about they think counts as a good argument and as a good challenge were determinated. The third part addressed what the participants think about the classroom activities encouraging scientific discourse and promoting argumentation. Qualitative content analysis approach was used to analyze the data from open ended questions in the thrid part of the questionnaire.

RESULTS Due to space restrictions, only the results of the quantitive analysis of the first and second parts of the questionnaire will be included here. The full paper will provide a comprehensive coverage of all the data analyses. Table 1. Percentages of Participants Answers in each Question of Part 1 Item Number

Correct label

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

2 4 6 3 1 5 3 1 5 6 2 4 6 2 4 5 3 1

Percentage Correct label 50,00% 16,67% 69,44% 31,94% 63,89% 50,00% 13,89% 40,28% 23,61% 70,83% 22,22% 22,22% 22,22% 34,72% 23,61% 13,89% 38,89% 40,28%

1 020

1st Wrong Label 3 5 4 4 2 3, 4, 6 2 3 4 4 3 5 5 1 5 6 4 2

Percentage of 1st Wrong Label 26,39% 23,61% 13,89% 44,44% 25,00% 13,89% 38,89% 26,39% 20,83% 16,67% 33,33% 37,50% 27,78% 40,28% 27,78% 68,06% 25,00% 26,39%

Strand 7


As Table 1 shows, in the first question, more of the half of the participants labeled correctly the argument with “the explanation, data, rebuttal” as the most convincing argument (63, 89%) and “contradictory “ as the least convincing argument (69,44%). However, it seems that in the second and third questions participants had more difficulty to identify correctly the most convincing argument (1). The same situation apears in the second convicing argument, where participants confused in the second and third questions with the argument with “warant only” (3) and argument with “data, explanation and rebuttal” (1). Participants confused in labeling the thrid convicing argument (“evidence only”) with the argument with “warrant only” (4) or “argument with explanation with evidence” (2). About the fourth argument (“warrant only”), in the three questions, the first wrong label is the argument “appeal authority” (5). However, the contradictory argument (6) is labeled correctly by the big majority in the first and second questions. About the second part of questionnaire, in the three questions, the majority of participants labeled correctly the strongest (1) and the weakest challege (6). However, in general, they were confused in the other arguments. As seen in table 2, in two of the questions of the second part of the questionnaire (question 4 and 5) one of the lowest porcentage in a correct label is in the fifth argument (rebuttals with only claim) and in both the first wrong label is the “argument with warrant” (2). Similar situation occur with the argument with warrant (2) that was labeled correctly by few participants (question 5 and 6). In this case, the first wrong label for it was argument with data (3) and argument with claim (4). Table 2. Percentages of Participants Answers in each Question of Part 2 Item Number

Correct label

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

5 6 1 2 4 3 1 3 2 4 6 5 4 5 3 1 6 2

Percentage Correct label 18,06% 93,06% 73,61% 36,11% 31,94% 26,39% 76,39% 31,94% 12,50% 31,94% 83,33% 15,28% 25,00% 23,61% 15,28% 86,11% 77,78% 20,83%

1st Wrong Label 2 2, 5 2 3 5 5 2 5 4 2 5 2 2 4 2 2 5 3

Percentage of 1st Wrong Label 27,78% 2,78% 13,89% 30,56% 45,83% 30,56% 12,50% 29,17% 27,78% 22,22% 9,72% 34,72% 25,00% 36,11% 37,50% 6,94% 12,50% 31,94%

CONCLUSIONS The results presented, that focus on Pre-service Teachers of Primary’s knowledge and understanding of argumentation, are a part of a wide study. The results show that the majority of the Pre-service Primary Teachers identify the best and the worst argument but they present difficulties in the intermediate positions. The participants did not seem to consider that data in an argument could be added to improve it. They give more priority to the arguments with only explanation than those that have explanation and data. Also, the results show they confuse between what is a claim and a warrant. 1 021

Strand 7


The results presented are significant because teachers’ understanding and perception of argumentation will be useful in designing specific training interventions so that they can be effectively supported in acquiring knowledge about argumentation. Then, the Primary Teacher will be able to help to their future students to construct good arguments in Science Education.

REFERENCES Chin, C. S. (2008). Current practices of scientific discourse and argumentation in science education: a mixed methods investigation based in Brunei Darussalam. Unpublished MSc Dissertation, University of Bristol, UK. Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer. Erduran., S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In, D. Jorde, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective, pp. 253--289. Sense Publishers. Erduran S., Dilek A., Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2 (2), 1-14. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., & Cetin, P. S. (2010). High school students’ perceptions of argumentation. Procedia -- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3971-3975. Kaya. E., Erduran, S. Cetin, P.S. (2012). Discourse, argumentation, and science lessons: match or mismatch in high school students’ perceptions and understanding? Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 2 (3), 1-32. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291310. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553--576. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research.62 (3), 307-332. Porlán, R., Martín del Pozo, R., Rivero, A., Harres, J., Azcárate, P. y Pizzato, M. (2010). El cambio del profesorado de ciencias I: marco teórico y formativo. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 28(1), 31-46. Ratcliffe, M. & Grace M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship: Teaching SocioScientific Issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2006). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the Annua l Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

1 022

Strand 7


Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). A research based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357377.

1 023

Strand 7


APPENDIX A ARGUMENTATION TEST Part I: Making a Scientific Argument Question 1. The agency of energy in Málaga is thinking a project to implant solar panels in the communities of neighbors without them to obtain hot water. Suppose someone makes the following claim about the solar energy, which reason makes the most convincing argument? Claim: Solar energy is cheaper than another type of energy as butane because…

 Depending on different house systems to produce energy people spend more or less money. A person who panels solar in your house pay 56€ per year and other without them, have to pay 336€ per year to wrn water.

 The panels solar used the sun to produce energy to warm water. The sun it’s free and you don’t have to pay anything to have energy.

 Two people, one with panels solar in your home and other without them, use the same number of bottles of butanes in one year.

 A person with panels solar at home need 20 bottles of butanes less that another without them.

 A person who use in your house energy solar to warm water, usually use 4 bottles of

butane per year to the days without sun. Other person that don’t have them in their house, consume 24 bottles of butanes. The sun is a energy resource free and thus, if the first person hadn’t had solar panels, he/she woudn´t have saved 280 euros in a year.

 The companies that install panels solar say this type of energy is cheaper. Question 2. Two people are discussing about if the electric car is better than petrol car. Suppose someone makes the following claim about the electric cars, which reason makes the most convincing argument? Claim: The cost per kilometre of electric cars is less than petrol cars because…

 A person with electricity car spend 1€ per 100 kilometres and other with petrol car spend 8,45 € per 100 kilometres.

 Petrol is more expensive than electricity. A person with a petrol car spend 15,35 € more

per month than her/his neighbor doing the same numbers of kilometres. Thus, if this person hadn’t have a electric car, he/she would had spent 184,2 € more each year.

 The goverment and companies as Endesa have published an inform where explain the economical benifits of the electric cars.

 For doing the same kilometres, you will pay 10 € in petrol if you go in a petrol car and 10 € if you use an electric car.

1 024

Strand 7


 If a person goes Málaga to Madrid in a petrol car have to spend 45,97€ and if he/she

goes in an electric car should pay 5,44 €. The petrol is a resource of energy very expensive in Spain.

 Petrol cars need petrol to work and electric cars need electricity. The electricity is cheaper than petrol.

Question 3. Two people are discussing about the environment advantages of the eolic energy. Suppose someone makes the following claim about the eolic energy, which reason makes the most convincing argument? Claim: Eolic energy is better for the environment than the energy obtained in a power plant of coal or gas because…

 The air is a resource of energy that generate 1Kg of CO2 per Kwh, in contrast the coal that generate 0,5 Kg of CO2 per Kwh.

 The eolic plants use air as resource of energy renewable and non-pollution

The power plants that use resources like coal generate CO2, exactly per each Kg of burned coal it will be generated 3,66 Kg CO2. (data and explanation)

 Power plants with coal need the combustion process to generate power and this process issues carbone dioxide to the atmosphere.

 The textbook says that eolic plants generated an renewable energy and non-pollution.  To generate 100 Kwh in a power plant of coal or gas, it will be issued to the atmosphere 100 kg of CO2, in contrast to eolic plant that will issue nothing.

 Per each Kwh generated by power plants of coal or gas, is generated 1 Kg of CO2

approximately. The CO2 is a gas that reinforce the greenhouse and thus the global warming. If I produce 1000 Kwh of energy using air, the atmosphere will have 1T less of CO2.

Part II: Challenging an Argument Question 4. Alvaro, Claudia, Francis y Carlota are neighbors that are discussing install solar panels in their building. They have looking for information and they are meeting to adopt a decision. Suppose Alvaro suggests that: “I think we shouldn’t install solar panels because it is more expensive that use bottles of butanes. If we install the solar panels I should pay around 1.120 € and now I am paying 280 € per year.” Claudia disagrees with Alvaro. Your task is to rank the 6 different challenges given b y Claudia in terms of how strong you think they are. Claudia: I disagree…

1 025

Strand 7


 “…because you haven’t done enough calculations. How can you be sure that to warm

up water by solar panels is more expensive that by bottles of butane if you only have compared the data of the first year?

 “…Because Francis y Carlota disagree with you and we are majority.”  “… It’s true we have to do an initial inversión but you can´t compare only the initial

inversion with the cost in bottles of butane that you pay in one year. You should think in a large period of time, you will pay the same during four years and from the fifth year you won't have to pay anything.”

 “…Because you haven’t valued in a long period time. Have you thought how much money that you could save in 10 years?”



“…To warm water by solar panels are cheaper than by bottles of butane because they used a resource of energy that it is free.”

 “…Because people save money with solar panels. My cousin installed solar panels six

years ago and he has saved 560 €. According to your claim nobody could save money with solar panels. How can my cousin have saved money with them?”

Question 5. Antonio and her wife want to buy a new car and they are discussing about the possibility to buy an electric car. They have the information of the the car shop where is explained the consumes of the two kinds of cars. Suppose Antonio suggests that: “I think we should not buy an electric car because we spend a lot of money to get electricity to do it work. In Spain the electricity is very expensive ” His wife disagrees. Your task is to rank the 6 different challenges given by his wife in terms of how strong you think they are. His wife: I disagree…

 “… It’s true that the electricity in Spain is so expensive in comparing with another

countries but also it’s true that depends with you compare it. A petrol car with 100 CV consumes 5,5l/100 km, that represents a expenditure of 7,4€ while an electric car consumes 16,5 KWh/100 km that represents a expenditure of 1€. The electric car has a expenditure 7 times less than a petrol car.”

 “…Our friends went for holidays to Granada in diferent cars, one family in a electric

car and the other in a petrol car. Those who went in electric car save 12 €. According to your claim, our friends with electric car hadn’t saved money in their trip.”



“…Because you aren’t comparing with the price of the petrol in Spain. Have you thought how much money that you could save in petrol?”



“…To the same numbers of kilometres, the electricity that need a electric car is cheaper than the petrol that need a petrol car.”

 “…Because our friends say we are going to spend less money with an electric car than with a petrol car.”

1 026

Strand 7




“…because you haven’t done comparisons. How can you be sure that you spend more money in a electric car than in a petrol car if you don’t compare their consumes and the prices of them?

Question 6. Sara and her husband have moved to Madrid and they are looking for a company which supplies them electricity. They have two possibilities, a company that the 75% of his production comes from eolic energy and the other that only comes the 50% from the eolic energy. The rest of the produced energy comes from coal. Both of them offer the same price of Kwh. They are discussing about the both possibilities. Suppose Sara suggests that: “I think It doesn't matter one or another company. The prices are the same and the effect to the environment is the same because both of them use coal to produce power.” Her husband disagrees. Your task is to rank the 6 different challenges given by her husband in terms of how strong you think they are. Her husband: I disagree…

 “…because to generate the same numbers of Kwh, the plant that use more eolic energy will generate less damage to the environment.”

 “…because you haven’t analysed correctly the data of emission of CO2 of each of them. Thus, How can you be sure that both companies have the same effect in the environment?

 “…Because if we need 100 Kwh, one of the companies will emit 50 Kg of CO2 and the

other 25Kg. According to your claim, both companies should emit the same kilos of CO2 to the enviroment.”



“… Because there are differences for the environment. The eolic plants use air as resource of energy that it’s a renewable and non-pollution resource. The coal is a resource that generates CO2 that is a gas that reinforce the greenhouse effect and thus the global warming. One of them are emitting the double of kilos of CO2 than the other to produce the same quantity of power.”

 “… Because the agency of energy of Málaga say that one of them care more

the

environment”



“…Because you aren’t considering that one of them use less coal to produce power. Have you thought how many kilos of CO2 is emitting to atmosphere one of them more than the other?”

1 027

Strand 7


PERCEPTION OF ARGUMENTATION TEST PART III (Classroom Discourse and Argumentation in Science) 1. What are the different kinds of activities which you would use in your classroom in order to encourage scientific discourse inside the classroom? You are allowed to tick more than one.  Group work  Pair work  Pair discussion  Group discussion  Open discussion  Debate  Drama (Role Play)  Practical  Experiment  Lecture  Other activities (please state:______________________________________ ) 2. What do you think that should be the participation of the students in the talks inside the classroom of science?  Every lesson  Often  Sometimes  Seldom  Never  Others (please state:________________________________________) 3. How often should argumentation use during science lessons?  Never  Seldom  Sometimes  Once every week  Every lesson  Others (please state:____________________________________________) 4. From your view of point, is discourse important during science lessons? Please explain. ______________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. How can be increased the quality of the talks that take place inside the classroom? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 6. Would you use the argumentation in science lessons?  Yes  No If yes, what are the kinds of activities you would use during science lessons to support argumentation?  Group work  Pair work

1 028

Strand 7

        


Pair discussion Group discussion Open discussion Debate Drama (Role Play) Practical Experiment Lecture Other activities (please state:______________________________________ )

7. How do think the students feel when a collaborative work to support argumentation is carried out in science lessons?  Enthusiastic  Reluctant  Bored  Unwillingness  Others (please state:_______________________________________) 8. What do you think could be the average level of involvement of the students to talk activities in science lessons?  100%  75%  50%  25% 9. From your point of view, is argumentation an important process in science education? Please explain. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ 10. From your point of view, what can a teacher do in order to support argumentation in science lessons? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

1 029

Strand 7


SCAFFOLDING GUIDED INQUIRY-BASED CHEMISTRY EDUCATION AT AN INCLUSIVE SCHOOL Dominic Klika¹ and Simone Abels² ¹ Federal High School Zehnergasse, Wiener Neustadt, Austria ² University of Vienna, Austrian Educational Competence Centre Chemistry Abstract: To implement an inclusive school system is a political obligation and an ethical imperative. In science education inquiry-based learning is, among others, recommended to deal with the diversity of students in a classroom. However, teachers struggle with the implementation of inquiry-based science education and view heterogeneity rather as a burden than an asset. Therefore, this research project is dedicated to teachers scaffolding students who learn inquiry-based in inclusive classes. The study is conducted in cooperation with an Austrian inclusive urban middle school (grade 5 to 8), where students with different preconditions, experiences, skills, backgrounds etc. learn together. Specifically, within the framework of a qualitative case study, the focus lies upon guided inquiry-based learning environments and how a chemistry teacher scaffolds students’ learning in different teaching settings. This project strives for the explication of detailed and latent patterns in verbal and non-verbal teaching practices. To achieve thorough explication video-based participant observations of contrasting cases were necessary. Different teaching approaches in an 8th grade chemistry class were observed. The teaching approaches vary from IRE (initiation – response – evaluation) discourse to inquiry-based group work. The data analysis follows the principles of Grounded Theory. It has shown to be a useful and appropriate methodology for science education research as it analyses social phenomena systematically and comparatively. Thus, it allows for deep insights into authentic inclusive teaching and for the identification of scaffolding patterns and restrictions. The two approaches compared here (IRE and inquiry) can be distinguished by the strategies the teacher uses to scaffold students’ learning which allow for different degrees of participation and for the application of different skills. Influences of systemic boundaries become evident especially during the inquiry approach. The patterns in the teacher’s scaffolding will be explained in detail and implications for inclusive practice will be indicated. Keywords: inquiry-based learning, inclusion, discourse, video analysis, Grounded Theory

INCLUSIVE AND INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Inclusive practice at classroom level demands learning opportunities and settings that are “sufficiently made available for everyone” facilitating participation for all (Florian & BlackHawkins, 2011, p. 814). This means science educators need to find or develop and evaluate inclusive pedagogical approaches where every student has the possibility to participate successfully without being labeled. Open, but well-structured tasks allow for selfdetermination and participation. Inclusive approaches are project-based or reform-oriented, i.e. individualized strategies are applied (Feyerer & Prammer, 2003). Another way of rather integrating than including students1 is the use of inner differentiation based on diagnostics of individual learning needs, the so-called additional needs approaches (ibid.). The differentiation has the potential risk of stigmatizing and allocating constant achievement groups. Learning materials are often differentiated in terms of being easier or more difficult, being shorter or longer, being rather hands-on or minds-on etc. The challenge is to know about the individual learning needs of every student to address his or her “next zone of proximal development” without stigmatizing (Vygotsky, 1978). Having 20 students or more in one classroom, this is an enormous challenge for teachers, especially for subject teachers at secondary level not being educated for teaching inclusively (Erten & Savage, 2012). 1 030

Strand 7


In science education, inquiry-based learning counts as one inclusive approach (Abels, 2015; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2007). It is recommended to foster students across the ability range (Rocard et al., 2007). Teachers struggle with the implementation of inquiry-based learning, but it seems to be a more feasible and realistic task than differentiating for all (Abels & Minnerop-Haeler, accepted). Inquiry-based science education strives for three aims: to learn scientific content, to learn to do inquiry and to learn about inquiry (Abrams et al., 2008). Cooperation and communication are essential features of inquiry-based settings. Depending on their prior knowledge and experience, social skills and abilities in self-regulated learning, students need more or less support to conduct an inquiry (Abels, 2015). Opportunities have to be created to acquire the necessary skills successively to do inquiry and reflect inquiry processes. A helpful tool is provided by the levels of inquiry (Table 1). Table 1. Levels of inquiry (Blanchard et al., 2010, p. 581).

Level 0: verification Level 1: structured Level 2: guided Level 3: open

Source of the question Given by teacher Given by teacher Given by teacher Open to student

Data collection methods Given by teacher Given by teacher Open to student Open to student

Interpretation of results Given by teacher Open to student Open to student Open to student

Not for every student level 3 is the optimal level to be achieved (Blanchard et al., 2010). Especially for students with learning difficulties level 2 is recommended as it allows for a balance of openness and structuring (Scruggs, Mastropieri & Okolo, 2008). The level-based inquiry approach becomes inclusive when different students get the opportunity to work on different levels on the same topic at the same time. This is possible by providing supportive materials and individualized scaffolding (Table 2). Scaffolding can be understood as careful guidance to help students solve scientific problems which are located in their “zone of proximal development” (Furtak, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978). Teachers support students to reach the next development level by “giving approval, probing learner’s ideas, structuring task activities, and providing general hints or specific suggestions” (van der Valk & de Jong, 2009, p. 832). Table 2. Exemplary support for students to work on different levels at the same time. Source of the question By this support the task is structured on level 1 Level 2 By this support level 2 remains Level 3 becomes possible by giving time for follow-up questions

Data collection methods Written instruction Given by teacher Open to student Hypotheses are given or Material table beginnings of phrasings List of materials Planning template Some students work on their own questions they developed during level 1 or 2

Interpretation of results Teacher input, prestructured protocol Open to student Auxiliary words Guiding questions Texts

For many teachers teaching inquiry-based in an inclusive classroom is a challenge. Little is known about how to conduct inclusive practice at classroom level (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Detailed insights into inclusive teaching practice are needed to support other teachers. Therefore, an eighth grade chemistry class at a so-called inclusive school2 forms the research

1 031

Strand 7


field of this study. The chemistry teacher uses structured and guided inquiry. The chemistry class is always split into semigroups, so that nine students form one group. Each group receives one hour of chemistry per week. Mainly, two approaches – IRE discourse and inquiry-based learning – are applied. These different approaches function to contrast scaffolding strategies, i.e. the strategies of the teacher to support different students are of interest. The question is: What are the differences in the teacher’s scaffolding comparing the two approaches IRE and inquiry learning? A further question is: What is the potential of different approaches to deal with diverse learning needs of all students in one classroom? IRE discourse was chosen as a contrast to inquiry learning, because it is a dominant procedure in German speaking countries, but does rather not allow for participation of all students (Markic & Abels, 2014).

METHOD Data collection took place in the 8th grade chemistry class during the whole school year 2013/14. The data collection is mainly based on videography and participant observation to achieve detailed insights. For the analysis presented in this article, video scenes for each approach were chosen so that typical scaffolding processes with a focus on teacher-studentdiscourse can be illustrated. Data were analyzed with technical support of the program ATLAS.ti by means of Grounded Theory, following the modes of initial, focused and theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006). This allows for deep and detailed analysis of scaffolding considering it as a social practice. In line with the Grounded Theory approach, the methodological device of contrasting cases is essential. Each teaching approach is demarcated as one case to be contrasted with each other. This way of qualitative data analysis based on video recordings has the potential to provide deep insights into social situations and to explain behavior or communication patterns that were not evident before.

RESULTS As results some major categories (theoretical codings) emerged. One major category – the prevalence of learning concepts – is exemplarily illustrated here by transcripts (Table 3) of selected video scenes of one of the semigroups in class 8. The first scene is taken from an IRE discourse on atoms (Figure 1) where seven students shall understand how atoms are structured and how they bond. The second scene is an out-take of a phase structured as inquiry level 2. The task for the students (in groups of two or three) is to distill a waterethanol-intermixture. The students have to decide about the experimental setup and how to solve the task (Figure 2). Table 3. Transcripts of selected video scenes. IRE discourse on atoms (7 students and 1 teacher) Teacher: The nucleus in the middle (points with index finger at a point at the table) and then I have around it (circles repeatedly with finger around the point) Student 3: negative Teacher: The? (voice is rising) Student 5: electrons Teacher: electrons, and where does one imagine these? Student 6: in shells (circles repeatedly with pencil around a point in the air) Teacher: in shells, exactly, ok,

Inquiry level 2: distillation – scaffolding process (3 of 9 students and 1 teacher) Student 1: yes, but this is not good, because it drops down from up there Teacher: ok and what can we do that it Student 2: I just take a bigger jar with a bigger diameter than that one Student 1: no, one could do it with this (points to a glass tube) Teacher: how could one shorten this way? (points from glass tube to beaker) Student 2: by adding another glass tube

1 032

Inquiry level 2: distillation – scaffolding content and process (3 of 9 students and 1 teacher) Teacher: are you taking care of the temperature, too? Student 1: yes, now we have exactly 80 degrees, now we are turning it a little bit down (looks at the thermometer in the distillation flask) Student 3: off (turns off the burner) Student 1: no, not totally off Student 3: for sure // (looks at the thermometer in the distillation flask) Teacher: // keep your faces a little bit away Student 3: it has 81, it has 81, it’s

Strand 7 and these electrons are they as big as the protons? (hand is formed as a claw and points three times into the air at shoulder height)

Discourse and argumentation in science education Teacher: how else? Student 2: by putting this higher Student 3: no, you just have to put this higher Student 2: look (puts a measuring cylinder on a beaker) Student 3: yes exactly Teacher: get a tin pot from over there Student 3: tin pot, fast, tin pot Student 1: no, I have a better idea, can one this here // Student 3: // tin pot Student 1: no, student 3, look we do it like this (…) Teacher: Student 1, you get bogged down in details again, you have only 15 minutes left

too high Teacher: what happens if it is still beneath 100 degrees? Student 1: then the alcohol vaporizes Teacher: that means this is just about the alcohol (…) are you taking care of the temperature? Student 3: yes, I’m looking (points to the thermometer in the distillation flask) Teacher: ok, how much is allowed? Student 3: not more than 90 Student 4: 99 is allowed (…) Teacher: Is it still alcohol that comes out? Student 3: no, rather no pure one Teacher: but instead?

Figure 1. IRE discourse on atoms in 8th grade.

Figure 2. Inquiry level 2 group work: distillation of a water-ethanol-intermixture. In the IRE discourse the scaffolding is mainly determined by strategies like closed questioning or ‘fill-in-the-blank’ sentences, seeking for short and distinct answers, e.g. “electrons” (see first column in Table 3). The teacher leads the students to a certain concept. The discourse is target-oriented. The concept talked about is rather abstract, but illustrated with a lot of gestures by the teacher which are imitated by students. Thus, the particle model becomes more vivid in the room and receives a visual component. In the language of

1 033

Strand 7


chemistry one could ascertain that the submicroscopic conceptualization is transferred to a macroscopic level (Taber, 2013, see Figure 3). It is noticeable that with longer duration of the discourse only the same two boys answer the questions of the teacher, ask questions themselves or utter their conceptions, e.g. one student says, “When an electron is added, the atom is negatively charged and will be attracted by a magnet.” In this example, the typical inclination of the students becomes evident to visualize the submicroscopic level as experiential phenomena (Figure 3). Those students who share this way of discourse about subject matter can participate, but there are only few opportunities created for the other students to engage in the discussion.

Figure 3. Three levels of conceptualizing chemistry learning (adapted after Taber, 2013) During the inquiry-based lesson the students have the opportunity to conduct more steps of a task self-dependently. They shall think about and apply a method to collect data and interpret the results of their investigation (inquiry level 2, cp. Table 1). They need to develop their own ideas and to agree on them in the group to handle the task successfully and autonomously. In contrast to the IRE discourse, the inquiry-based setting has more open space for the ideas of the students. The students have greater opportunities to structure the lesson in co-agency with the teacher. The teacher observes the groups and sometimes talks with them about the progress of their investigation. These short sequences of teacher-student-discourse during the inquiry processes also follow an IRE pattern, but the communication approach can rather be classified as interactive/ dialogic instead of interactive/ authoritative (Mortimer & Scott, 2010). The teacher supports the students by asking questions to organize their ideas and actions. The questions of the teacher are either process-oriented or content-oriented, but always linked to phenomena of the practical work (cp. Table 3, column 2 and 3). The questions sometimes start open (column 2) and the teacher asks for ideas. In other scenes she wants the students to describe the progress of the practical work. The teacher tries to refer to important issues of the practical work, so that the students are able to use the hints and come to a successful end of the task (column 3). If the students bring up an issue, the utterances of the teacher are not direct and entire suggestions giving the students the opportunity to come to a solution self-initiated (Teacher: “how could one shorten this way?”). With longer duration of the investigation, however, the questions become narrower and turn into specific suggestions or instructions (Teacher: “get a tin pot from over there”). The practical work enables higher or different participation, when participation is understood as collaboration and active engagement (Booth, 2002). In contrast to the IRE discourse, the inquiry-based setting allows for different role-taking. Student 2, for example, engages in the practical work, but not at all in the IRE discourse. He is able to participate in the inquiry and 1 034

Strand 7


undertakes the practical tasks, e.g. lightening the Bunsen burner, looking for material etc. Student 1 hardly takes part in the IRE discourse as well and suddenly, during the practical work, he shows leadership competences that were not evident before. Student 1 follows his own ideas and structures the setting of the experiment. In the end, he gets his own way and creates the experimental setup according to his conceptions (“no, student 3, look we do it like this”; see column 2/Table 3). When the teacher’s questions also focus on content (Table 3, third column), the scaffolding strategy is coded as distinct and related to the process. The questions are hints for the students to structure the inquiry and to take care of important issues of the practical work to come to success. The teacher tries to connect the practical work with a scientific background (here: boiling temperature). The students should be able to justify their decisions on the experimental performance. The student-teacher-discourse shows, however, that the students do not argue on the basis of their scientific knowledge about boiling temperatures. The utterances of the students are rather directly associated to the observable phenomena of the practical work, where they can see that the temperature is continuously increasing. The students mostly focusing on the material and phenomena entails that they do not abstract from the activity. The power of doing drives the actions of the students and structures the progress of the practical work and of the lesson. A prevalence of doing inquiry instead of learning concepts becomes obvious, which allows for higher participation, but not for higher learning gains in subject matter. This is a dilemma for inclusive science education. Inclusion must not only mean social participation, but also participation in subject matter learning on individual levels. By progression of the lesson, it is also noticeable that the teacher’s scaffolding becomes constrained by systemic conditions. The teacher has to take care of the time, learning goals, curriculum provisions and safety issues. She uses prompts to ensure safety during the practical work (“keep your faces a little bit away”) and warnings to make the students notice the remaining time of the lesson (“you get bogged down in details again, you have only 15 minutes left”). It becomes evident by the narrowing way of scaffolding that the students shall achieve a certain aim set by the curriculum in a limited amount of time. These systemic constraints prevent inclusive education (Abels, 2015).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In summary, the two approaches (IRE and inquiry) can be distinguished by the potential opportunities to participate and to learn different skills and knowledge. During the inquirybased teaching the systemic boundaries seem to be more influencing on the scaffolding than in the IRE units. The teacher is under stress to finish the planned lesson. During an inquiry lesson of 50 minutes there is usually no time for the discussion of related scientific concepts. In both settings the teacher seems to be aware of the conceptual learning goals to be achieved. However, during the inquiry she cannot guide the students as much into this direction as during the IRE discourse. The importance of giving input on subject matter without reducing opportunities to participate is a big challenge for teachers and an unsolved dilemma for inclusive science education. How to structure a reflective session on conceptual learning after the inquiry inclusively is to be discussed as the IRE discourse cannot really provide opportunities for all to participate. The next step in the project was to compare the chemistry lessons with a kind of workshop center, an open inquiry setting (level 3), at the same school where less systemic boundaries are given and students can work three days in a row on their own question of interest. This setting seems to be promising in terms of inclusion, but very resource-intensive (Abels, 2015). Acknowledgement: We are thankful for the cooperation with the school, teachers and students, supporting our research.

1 035

Strand 7


NOTES 1. Integration means that students with and without special needs learn together in one classroom or one school. Students’ learning needs are assessed; human and material resources for support are allocated accordingly. Usually, about one fourth of students of an integrative classroom have diagnosed special needs. Inclusion, however, proceeds on the assumption that every human being has certain learning needs and that the school system has to provide the resources to facilitate the best development of everybody (Sliwka, 2010). Separated school systems, comparative tests, grades, standard curricula etc. contradict inclusion so that at the moment, teachers can only try to teach as inclusively as possible. 2. The school is in Austria where students are separated into different types of school after primary school (age of ten). Therefore, the school can only try to teach in accordance with inclusive principles. As long as there is no joint school for all students, there cannot be real inclusion.

REFERENCES Abels, S. (2015). Scaffolding inquiry-based science and chemistry education in inclusive classrooms. In N. L. Yates (Ed.), New developments in science education research (pp. 77-96). New York: Nova. Abels, S. & Minnerop-Haeler, E. (accepted). Lernwerkstatt – An Inclusive Approach in Science Education. In S. Markic & S. Abels (Eds.), Science Education towards Inclusion. New York City: Nova. Abrams, E. et al. (2008). Introduction. Inquiry in the classroom. In E. Abrams, S. Southerland & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom (pp. xi-xlii). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Blanchard, M. et al. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616. Booth, T. (2002). Inclusion and exclusion in the city: Concepts and contexts. In P. Potts & T. Booth (Eds.), Inclusion in the city (pp. 1-14). London: Routledge. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Erten, O. & Savage, R. S. (2012). Moving forward in inclusive education research. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), 221-233. Feyerer, E. & Prammer, W. (2003). Gemeinsamer Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe 1. Anregungen für eine integrative Praxis. Weinheim, Basel, Berlin: Beltz. Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828. Furtak, E. (2008). The dilemma of guidance. An exploration of scientific inquiry teaching. Saarbrücken: VDM. Markic, S. & Abels, S. (2014). Heterogeneity and diversity – A growing challenge or enrichment for science education in German schools? EURASIA, 10(4), 271-283. Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. (2010). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms (Reprinted ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Rocard, M. et al. (2007). Science education now. http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf [18.03.2008] Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science Learning in Special Education: The Case for Constructed Versus Instructed Learning. Exceptionality, 15(2), 57-74. Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M. A. & Okolo, C. M. (2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(2), 1-24.

1 036

Strand 7


Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. In OECD (Ed.), Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge (pp. 205-217). OECD Publishing. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 156-168. van der Valk, T. & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open‐inquiry teaching. IJSE, 31(6), 829-850. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press.

1 037

Strand 7


HUMAN DECISION-MAKING: INTUITION AND REFLECTION IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES Arne Dittmer,1 Jürgen Menthe,2 Dietmar Höttecke3 and Ulrich Gebhard3 1

University of Regensburg, Biology Education (Germany). [email protected]

2

University of Hildesheim, Chemistry Education (Germany). [email protected]

University of Hamburg, Physics Education, Biology Education (Germany). [email protected]; [email protected]

3

Abstract: This paper argues for a more biography-oriented understanding of decision-making in science education and science education research. The theoretical ideas highlighted here refer to a long tradition of science education research that stresses the emancipatory dimension of science education, like Public Understanding of Science or Scientific Literacy. At present time conceptualizations based on rational choice calculations are most influential in the research on decision making in science education. Rational deliberation and argumentation are important aspects of decision-making, but knowledge about human decision-making processes in real situations must not be neglected. Therefore we would like to emphasize three theoretical approaches that we consider fruitful for a realistic understanding of human decision-making: the social-intuitionist model of moral judgment from Jonathan Haidt, Pierre Bourdieus theory of practice and Hans-Christoph Kollers philosophy of education. Haidt and Bourdieu both highlight the importance of internalized beliefs and embodied personal experiences for human decisionmaking, Haidt looking from a psychological and Bourdieu looking from a sociological point of view. Koller is inspired from the German discourse about Bildung (similar to the Anglo-Saxon Philosophy of Education). In his approach, the irritations and insecurities, which might occur when people discuss socio-scientific or environmental issues, build the starting point of personal development. In his transformative theory of Bildung Koller describes the positive role of “crisis” in a situation, when people begin to question previously held views and change the way they see the world and themselves. Keywords: decision-making, biography, intuitive judgments, habitus, crisis.

INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH ON HUMAN DECION-MAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION Science and technology have an enormous impact on our lives. On the one hand, scientific inventions and discoveries have made life a lot easier, safer and healthier (for the people with access to such blessings). On the other hand these developments have caused severe new problems (e.g., pollution, destruction of habitats, reduced biodiversity or climate change) that need to be solved. Following the idea of Scientific Literacy, science education must enable students to understand these problems, encourage them to make informed and responsible decisions, and help them to create new perspectives and solutions (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003). A specific feature of contemporary socio-scientific issues is that they can´t be solved by simply applying scientific knowledge. Instead, it is crucial that students become aware of the ethical implications of such problems and that they learn to examine their own opinions, and the origins of their beliefs. Furthermore, students must be able to share knowledge and values when it comes to the question how to deal with complex, often ethically controversial issues. This includes

1 038

Strand 7


learning about ways to discuss and negotiate different views, as well as how to assess contradicting evidence. School science is the appropriate place not only for teaching scientific contents, it is also a place to train ethical reflection and discourse-oriented communication styles when it comes to socio-scientific or environmental issues. In the past, conceptualizations of decision-making based on rational choice calculations were very influential in science teaching (Eggert & Bögeholz, 2010). We would like to propose a concept for a broader understanding of decision-making. In doing so, we find ourselves within a long tradition of research; one that emphasizes the emancipatory role of science teaching by focusing on participation in the public discourse about science and technology (see Waks, 1989; Aikenhead 1994). If fostering of participation and empowerment of students are relevant goals, we have to take a closer look at the emotions, beliefs and experiences of the students, who are engaged in these ethical considerations. The following theoretical approaches will legitimate this claim.

THE ROLE OF INTUITIONS FROM A PSYCHOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW: JONATHAN HAIDT´S SOCIAL-INTUITIONISM Often, decision-making in science education focuses solely on the conscious reflective process, e.g., if ethical arguments or scientific content related to a socio-scientific issue are analyzed. But following a psychological conceptualization of human thinking, any decision we make is inevitably and quickly accompanied by intuitive impulses that are only scrutinized by conscious thought if necessary. Perception itself is not a process of a neutral description of the environment but a selective translation of sensations regarding pre-existing and not necessarily conscious memories (Anderson, 1983). The central insight of Freudian Psychoanalysis is the role of the unconscious that conditions our behavior, emotions and thinking far more than we are aware of. This implicational relation between consciousness and unconscious is taken up by modern social and cognitive psychology and establishes its empirical foundation. The activation of associative nodes can be triggered by factual information but as well for other reasons (e.g., similarity to former events or experience). Based on this, intuitions are understood as unconscious cognitions whose genesis remains hidden because only the result of the thinking processes becomes conscious. In drawing on psychoanalysis, Epstein (1994) describes the current interest in intuitions as a renaissance of the unconscious. In social psychology, unconscious mental processes become, once more, an object of research in 'two-process' models of thinking. Analogous to the distinction made between conscious and unconscious processes, social psychologists distinguish between two modes of processing in the cognitive system: controlled (reflective) and associative (intuitive) thinking processes (Evans, 2007, Kahneman, 2012). The shared characteristic of the different dual-process models is that they describe a mode of thinking in which information is processed associatively. The memory associates meaning with any perception at the same moment in which the perception takes place. This 'obligatory' thinking process is contrasted with a coping process that is based on the application of symbolically represented rules, which can be reconstructed with language and logic. Strack & Deutsch (2004) distinguish in their dual-process model between the 'reflective system' and the 'impulsive system'. In the 'impulsive system', thinking processes proceed impulsively, along with associated memories, and thus influence our motivational orientation. This means that the reflective mode can be applied in a facultative manner if sufficient situational motivation and intellectual capacity are available, whereas intuitions accompany any decision-making process.

1 039

Strand 7


Hence, rational deliberation is always biased by the impulsive system, because with the perception of a situation, memory contents are immediately activated, resulting in intuitive judgments. Such associations play a role in rationale affairs like technology assessment too. Two examples from biology education might illustrate the importance of intuitions for decision making processes. Raising the topic of genetic engineering will immediately evoke very different associations, e.g. the idea of the untouchability of nature, leading, in this context, to an inherently hostile attitude towards the topic without consciously reflecting upon it. Raising the topic of sustainable development can immediately evoke the idea of the intrinsic value of nature, leading an individual to take a certain moral point of view without consciously reflecting upon it (Gebhard, 2000; Dittmer & Gebhard, 2015). In classical moral research (Kohlberg, 1969) the intuitive roots of moral judging and behavior were rarely considered. The rationalistic research paradigm of moral psychology is based on the works of Jean Piaget (1926). The direction of individual development posited by Piaget assumes a specific, egocentric thinking that leads to abstract, logical thinking. The goal is the ability to change perspectives combined with the gradual detachment from external authorities. Lawrence Kohlberg (1969), probably the most prominent representative of this research tradition, describes the highest stage of moral development as the ability to apply universal ethical principles. On this stage, an individual can use abstract reasoning and universal ethical principles to make moral decisions. In real decisions, human beings only have limited possibilities to reflect the cognitive processes, which are responsible for their own ethical judgments and moral behavior. Furthermore, studies about moral judgments showed that people rather doubted their reasoning than their initial judgment when facing irritations. In a psychological study test persons were confronted with a breach of a taboo. When they were not able to justify their initial judgment any further they became insecure or made up preposterous reasons to maintain their justification (Haidt, Koller & Dias, 1993). An understanding of moral judgments based on the current discussion about the significance of the socio-cultural influence and intuitive decisions helps to understand the reasons for such discrepancies between judging and acting or why apparently non-rational or nonscientific aspects play an important role in moral judgments. The social-intuitionist model of moral judgment from Jonathan Haidt (2001) agrees with the social psychological view on the relation between perception and judgment. Furthermore, judging complex moral issues is understood as a simultaneous process of situational perception and information processing (see Gilovich, Griffin & Kahneman, 2002). In Haidts view the moral judgment - and its posthoc justification – resembles much more a defense lawyer in court than the ideal of an unaffected and truth-searching researcher. Furthermore, human beings do not judge as isolated individuals: “The social part of the social intuitionist model proposes that moral judgment should be studied as an interpersonal process” (Haidt, 2001, p. 814). Embedded in the social context in which the subject and the object of judgment are situated, the reasons for judgment often have an indirect origin and effect: “Moral reasoning is usually an ex-post facto process used to influence the intuitions (and hence judgments) of other people. […] Then, when faced with a social demand for a verbal justification, one becomes a lawyer trying to build a case rather, than a judge searching for the truth” (Haidt, 2001, p. 814) Humans possess a comprehensive pool of culturally shared convictions. Haidt refers to “a priori causal theories” (Haidt, 2001, p. 822) on which humans automatically draw when asked to justify their intuitions. The social dimension of Haidt's model posits that judging a situation or

1 040

Strand 7


topic must also be understood as a socially influenced process. Humans live in social contexts, oriented at socially shared and internalized values and norms. Haidt characterizes this phenomenon as the chameleon-effect: people unconsciously imitate the convictions and values of their fellow human beings to whom they feel related. According to Haidt, the common-senseperception of moral judgements suffers from a big illusion that he refers to as the “wag-the-dog illusion”: The relations between reflection and judgment are thought in the wrong (namely upside down) order. Haidt (2001) describes six basic processes, which influence moral judgments:  The intuitive judgment: The evaluation of situations, persons or topics is a fundamental part of our perception. The associative coping processes leading to the judgment stay hidden. The categorization of our environment is based on internalized and, at most, successful heuristics (see Zajdonc, 1980; Gilovich, Griffin & Kahneman, 2002).  The post-hoc-justification: People start to give reasons for their intuitive judgments when they are asked to do so or when they are motivated otherwise (see Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Kuhn, 1991). This kind of legitimation of the own judgment corresponds with the construction of hypotheses about the reasons for their own behavior. The justification for behavior or judgment does not happen before but rather after the intuitive judgment of an issue.  The argumentative influence on the intuitions of a conversational partner: When people start to explain themselves, their reasoning evokes associations and intuitive judgments by their conversational partner, which also get justified post-hoc.  The social influence: Often our intuitions correspond to the convictions predominant in a group that we feel related to or which is sympathetic to us. This phenomenon is discussed in more detail under the title “social persuasion” (see Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Chen & Chaiken, 1999).  The reflective judgment: If a person has enough cognitive capacities and stays in a sufficient spatial and temporal context, a judgment can be the result of reflective thinking regardless of their possible consistency with our intuitions (Haidt, Koller & Dias, 1993). Counter-intuitive judgment requires a great deal of critical distance towards the own behavior. Such a quasiphilosophical reflectiveness is, even if cognitively more complicated and not determining daily life, a valuable good in western civilization. To train this philosophical way of thinking is a constitutive part of science and education and forms the starting point of current designs of models that foster the development of the decision-making competence in science education (see Reitschert & Hößle, 2006; Eggert & Bögeholz, 2010).  The inner dialogue: Moreover, reflecting on the situations and the points of view of other persons can lead to new associations and intuitive judgments, contrasting preceding intuitions. Such an inner dialogue is supported in pedagogical contexts as the ability to change one’s own perspective and take on a different role (Hoffman, 1991). People put themselves in somebody else's situation, try to understand their perspective and therewith generate new intuitions. The social-intuitionist model of moral judgment is not anti-rationalistic because intuitive judgments are not inalterable or of a higher moral quality. However, considering the fact that humans generally process information unconsciously, intuitive judgments are unavoidable and at the same time express our often unconscious convictions and beliefs. Below the surface of ethical arguments – no matter how complex they are – our intuitive beliefs and concepts operate and affect our judgements.

1 041

Strand 7


A SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW ON HUMAN-BEHAVIOR: BOURDIEU AND THE CONCEPT OF HABITUS Haidt and other contemporary moral psychologist (see Greene, 2014) stress the important influence of intuitions and feelings in decision-making processes. But where do these intuitions come from? What makes certain thoughts, decisions and actions more likely for certain people in certain social contexts? The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu introduced the concept of habitus to explain the interplay between the society and the individual. The habitus can be understood as a relatively stable system of dispositions that are deeply ingrained in the individual and that are a product of the different experiences which themselves are closely related to structures and principles of the society the individual lives in. In the words of Bourdieu, the habitus are “systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends” (Bourdieu 1990, p. 53). The habitus “governs practice”, and it does so “through mediation of the orientations and limits it assigns to the habitus’ operations of invention” (Bourdieu 1977, S. 95). The habitus is creative and inventive and affects any action the individual takes, any thought that occurs to his or her mind (ibid.). Furthermore, the term disposition expresses that the habitus leaves room for variation. The habitus does not mechanically determine behavior, it just designates “a habitual state (especially of the body) and in particular a predisposition, tendency … or inclination” (ibid. p. 214) operant in variant situations and topics. The habitus is productive and inventive and it is “the basis of the perception and appreciation of all subsequent experiences” (ibid. p. 78). Addressing the field of school science and teaching decision making in school science Bourdieu´s understanding of human behavior implies, that all utterances and actions in concrete situations are basically expressions of an individual´s habitus – and are far less influenced by rational deliberation than most people like to think. Ensuing that path, Bourdieu discriminates between theoretical reason and the logic of practice. Theoretical reason has its place in abstract, time-consuming considerations, detached from the world of practice and leading to a huge amount of possible decisions. In real situations, though, only a very limited choice will come to mind. The habitus will unconsciously guide thinking, often decisions are made without us even noticing the decision making process. Argumentation and rational choice therefor are poor predictors of behavior and teaching argumentation will only be effective, if it helps to reflect decision making processes and habitus-based behavior. Again in the words of Bourdieu: “Practice has a logic which is not that of the logician. This has to be acknowledged in order to avoid asking of it more logic than it can give” (Bourdieu 1990, p. 86). This of course does not mean to dismiss logic from decision-making. But it means that progress in personality development can only be achieved, if students do understand the limiting influence of the logic of practice and the impact of the habitus. Helping them to grasp the strong mediating effect of unconscious dispositions is the first and most important goal in teaching decisionmaking. Fortunately Bourdieu’s concept of habitus allows change and progression: to some extent the habitus can become conscious – and it does so in situations where habitual behavior does not fit or does not have the expected results. These moments of irritation – or crisis, as we will later call them – bear the chance of self-development, if the teaching process offers the opportunity to reflect these discrepancies and irritations. That leads to the second goal of our understanding of decision making: the reflection of real decision and decision making processes

1 042

Strand 7


(logic of practice). Conflicts between our dispositions and our logical reasoning allow slow and modest changes in our thinking and – in even more modest amounts – our habitus. As the habitus is deeply ingrained (or embodied) and steadily reconfirmed in our daily life, changes will surely not derive from a single lesson in a single school subject. Reflecting on practice needs to be established as a regular and reoccurring element within different subjects and contexts – and would probably result in a different, new type of schools.

THE ROLE OF IRRITATIONS AND CRISIS As a third step, we will consider the role of irritations that might (and should) occur when people are confronted with socio-scientific or environmental issues and when there initial views are questioned in classroom discussions. In the German discourse about learning and education, the term Bildung works as a general orientation. The theoretical discourse about Bildung is comparable with the Anglo-Saxon Philosophy of Education (see Schulz, 2014). Processes of Bildung in this tradition describe the self-development of students and their growing ability to participate in public discourses. Beyond this traditional view on Bildung and embedded in postmodern theories, Hans-Christoph Koller describes his understanding of Bildung with regard to the increasing plurality of cultural and moral orientations in western societies (Koller, 2003). In his conceptualization of Bildung, processes of Bildung come into play when people loose stable orientations and come to question their previous view of the world. The term crisis plays a crucial role in Kollers theory as a crisis builds the initial moment of any process of Bildung. Referring to Koller’s transformative theory of Bildung we postulate that teaching decisionmaking offers a great opportunity for the development of the individual, if this process is understood as a confrontation of knowledge, values, beliefs and intuitive impulses. Crisis describes the irritation that might occur if individuals are confronted with their own intuitions, beliefs and convictions. The term crisis also implies that individuals always rely on impulses that are based on their biography, and that will lead them to intuitively support or reject certain views.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE TEACHING, OPEN-MINDED SCIENCE TEACHER AND SCIENCE EDUCATION RESEARCH Decision-making can´t be understood by solely referring to theories of rational choice: cognitive psychology and moral psychology provide a more thorough perspective on human decision making, and should be integrated in the discourse of decision-making in science teaching. Dualprocess models of information processing allow for a deeper understanding of the respective roles played by reflective and impulsive processes of decision-making. Learning about decisionmaking can only be understood if the whole individual, including his or her biography and his or her development, is considered, and not just his or her ability to use certain pieces of information. Students’ reflections are a central element of our theoretical approach. This approach serves as a normative device to guide and enable future research and development in the field of decisionmaking in science education. Highlighting the intuitive dimension of decision-making has considerable consequences for science teaching. Apart from reinforcing argumentation skills, a broader openness to morally relevant intuitions and their implicit effect on the decision making processes need to be established. The intuitive dimensions of decision-making are an educational challenge and

1 043

Strand 7


require sensibility and care on the part of students as well as teachers. The support of argumentative competence represents the cognitive dimension of decision-making competence. As important as these skills undoubtedly are, without corresponding social, empathic and communicative skills (e.g., coping with allegedly irrational behavior), decision-making in science education remains theoretic and tentative (Dittmer & Gebhard, 2015). To help students understand their own decisions, intuitions must be welcomed and accepted as the motivational basis of decision-making processes. Science teaching needs to offer opportunities for the discussion of different views, and must allow students to become aware of their intuitions (Menthe & Parchmann 2015). Furthermore, students should be encouraged to reflect upon these intuitions in a discursive manner in order to gain a deeper understanding of themselves. Without considering the intuitive side of decision-making, it will be impossible to understand real decision-making processes.

REFERENCES Aikenhead, G.S. (1994). The Social Contract of Science. In J. Solomon & G.S. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform (pp. 11-20). New York: Teachers College Press. Anderson, J.R. (1983). A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 407-428. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The Heuristic-systematic Model in its Broader Context. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope Y. (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guildford Press. Dittmer, A. & Gebhard, U. (2015). Intuitions about Science, Technology and Nature – A Fruitful Approach to Understand Judgments about Socio-Scientific Issues. In M. Kahveci & M. Orgill (Eds.), Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education (pp. 89-104). Heidelberg: Springer. Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students´ Use of Decision-Making Strategies With Regard to Socioscientific Issues - An Application of the Rasch Partial Credit Model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709-724. Evans, J.S.B.T. (2007). Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgement, and Social Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278. Gebhard, U. (2000). The Role of Nature in Adolescents' Conceptions of Gene Technology. In H. Bayrhuber, W. Garvin, & J. Graiger (Eds.), Teaching Biotechnology at School: A European Perspective (S. 137-147). Kiel: EIBE IPN. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethis. Ethics 124 (4), 695-726.

1 044

Strand 7


Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in Decision-making Strategies: An approach to enhance studentsćompetence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Jorunal of Science Education, 35, 2587-2607. Haidt, J., Koller, S.H., & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, Culture, and Morality, or Is it Wrong to Eat Your Dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 191-221. Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail. A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108 (4), 814-834. Hoffman, M. L. (1991). Empathy, Social Cognition, and Moral Action. In W.M. Kurtines, & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development. Volume 1: Theory (pp. 275-301). Hilldale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cgnitive-developmental Approach to Socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Koller, H.-C. (2003). Bildung and Radical Plurality: Towards a redefinition of Bildung with reference to J.-F. Lyotard. Educational Philosophy and Theory 35 (2), 155-165. Koller, H.-C. (2007). Bildung als Entstehung neuen Wissens? Zur Genese des Neuen in transformatorischen Bildungsprozessen. In H.-R. Müller & W. Stravoravdis (Eds.), Bildung im Horizont der Wissensgesellschaft (pp. 49-66). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Menthe, J. & Parchmann, I. (2015). Getting Involved: Context-Based Learning in Chemistry Education. From theoretical frameworks and research into practice. In M. Kahveci & M. Orgill (Eds.) Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education (pp. 51-67). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Nisbett, R.E. & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer. Piaget, J. (1926). La Représentation du monde chez l'enfant. Paris: Alcan. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship – Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues. Maidenhead: Oxford University Press. Reitschert, K., & Hößle, C. (2006). Competence of moral judgement in Biology lessons. How do students judge problems of biomedical sciences? In: VIth conference of ERIDOB, Institute of Education, London. Schulz, R. (2014). Philosophy of Education and Science Education: A Vital but Underdeveloped Relationship. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer: Dordrecht. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220-247. Waks, L. J. (1989). Critical Theory and Curriculum Practice in STS Education. Journal of Business Ethics 8, 201-207.

1 045

Strand 7


Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.

1 046

Strand 7


THE EFFECTS OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS AND PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ARGUMENTS Andreani Baytelman1, Kalypso Iordanou2 & Costas Constantinou1 1 Learning in Science Group, University of Cyprus, Cyprus 2 University of Central Lancashire, Cyprus Abstract: This study investigates how undergraduate education students' epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge about controversial socio-scientific issues might affect the arguments that they construct. 243 undergraduate education students were asked to construct different types of arguments − social, economic, ecological, scientific and ethical− as well as counterarguments and rebuttals after they had read a scenario on a socio-scientific topic, on one of the following topics, usage or not usage of vaccines, consumption of bottled vs. tap water, or usage of underground vs. overhead high voltage lines. Participants’ epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge were also assessed. Results showed that students' epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge predict students’ construction of scientific and ethical arguments. In particular, students who were profiled as Evaluativists, exhibiting sophisticated simplicity beliefs, and held high prior knowledge produced more and higher quality of scientific and ethical arguments than students who were profiled as non-Evaluativists, exhibiting naïve simplicity beliefs, and held low prior knowledge. This study contributes to the scientific literature on learning and teaching in science in two different ways: The first contribution is related to the enrichment of certain areas of the theoretical framework related to epistemological beliefs, prior knowledge and construction of arguments for SSI. The second contribution is related to undergraduate students' education, indicating the need of sophisticated epistemological beliefs and robust topic conceptual understanding to promote skills of construction of arguments for SSI and potential strengthening of their moral sensitivity. Keywords: Epistemological beliefs, Prior Knowledge, argument construction, socio-scientific issues, undergraduate education students.

INTRODUCTION Over the past thirty years, research on argumentation skills has become a prominent area in educational research. The construction of arguments is described as an essential feature of scientific reasoning and as an integral component of scientific literacy (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). Argumentation skills involve reasoning about the advantages and disadvantages, pros and cons, causes and consequences, of alternative perspectives (Mason & Scirica, 2006) and assume more importance when the problems are more open-ended, debatable, complex or illstructured. Thus, an important subfield of argumentation is the argumentation on socioscientific issues (SSI), which are open-ended, ill-structured problems, typically contentious and subject to multiple perspectives and solutions (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b). Recently, science education researchers have become interested in examining several factors, such as epistemological beliefs - refer to individuals’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the process of Knowing -, prior Knowledge, values, desires and expectations, as potential contributors to the construction of socio-scientific arguments (Wu & Tsai, 2011). We extended this line of research by investigating how undergraduate education students' epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge about controversial SSI might affect the number, the quality and the type of the socio-scientific arguments that they constructed. The contribution of epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge to the type of the socio-scientific arguments has not yet been investigated. By doing this, we hoped to enrich certain areas of 1 047

Strand 7


the theoretical framework related to epistemological beliefs, prior knowledge and construction of arguments on socio-scientific issues and explore ways to prepare future teachers to improve their argumentation skills, and their ability to foster development of these practices among their future students.

Theoretical Framework Conceptualization of Epistemological beliefs Epistemological beliefs generally refer to students’ (or other individuals’) beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the process of Knowing (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Although multiple theoretical models of epistemological beliefs have been developed, two overarching kind of models can be identified: those that examine epistemological beliefs from a developmental perspective, and those that explore epistemological beliefs from a multidimensional perspective. The primary goal of developmental models (e.g. Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000) is to explain the stages through which epistemological beliefs evolve, whereas the models of epistemological beliefs from a multidimensional perspective focus primarily on the nature and characteristics of beliefs (Schommer, 1990). Research indicates that epistemological beliefs range from a less advanced view to more advanced epistemologies and develop through life and educational experiences (Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000). For developmental model, Perry’s work (Perry, 1970) was very essential. According Perry's scheme of intellectual and ethical development there are four basic categories of epistemological beliefs: (a) Dualism: A dualistic, absolutist, right and-wrong view of the world. Authorities are expected to know the truth and to convey it to the learner. (b) Multiplicity: Represents a modification of dualism, with the beginning of the recognition of diversity and uncertainty. Authorities who disagree haven't yet found the right answer, but truth is still knowable. An individual at this position is inclined to believe that all views are equally valid and that each person has a right to his or her own opinion. (c) Relativism: Individuals perceive knowledge as relative, contingent, and contextual and begin to realize the need to choose and affirm one's own commitments. Individuals make and affirm commitments to values, careers, relationships, and personal identity. (d) Commitment within relativism: Individuals are certain about the contextualize truth of a knowledge claim, but this is subject to an going process of doubt and refinement. The significance of Perry's work can be seen in later developmental models such as the Epistemological Understanding Model of Kuhn and coworkers (e.g. Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn, Iordanou, Pease, & Wirkala, 2008). Specifically, based on Perry's scheme, Kuhn and coworkers (e.g. Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn, et al., 2008) have created a framework of steps toward mature epistemological beliefs that describes three general categories: absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist. Absolutists view knowledge as certain and absolute, facts and expertise as the basis for knowing, and express high certainty about their own beliefs. Multiplists do not accept the possibility of expert certainty and are skeptical about expertise generally, while viewing that experts not only disagree but are inconsistent over time. Evaluativists deny the possibility of certain knowledge, and acknowledge that viewpoints can be compared and evaluated to assess relative merits. These positions are considered developmental rather than variants of cognitive style because they have been found to have a relationship with educational level and, to a lesser degree, age. A second kind of epistemological model advanced by Schommer focuses on multidimensional approach (Schommer, 1990; Schommer-Aikins, 2004). According to Schommer, epistemological beliefs could be described as a system of more or less independent beliefs (epistemological dimensions), conceptualized as beliefs about the certainty (related with the stability of knowledge), simplicity (related with the structure of knowledge), and source of knowledge, as well as beliefs about the speed and ability of knowledge acquisition. While the three first dimensions in Schommer’s conceptualization fall under the more generally accepted definition of epistemological beliefs as beliefs about the 1 048

Strand 7


nature of knowledge (certainty, simplicity) and knowing (source) (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997), the two last dimensions have been controversial because they mainly concern beliefs about learning (speed) and intelligence (ability). Hofer and Pintrich (1997) argued that epistemological beliefs should be defined more purely, with two dimensions concerning the nature of knowledge (what one believes knowledge is) and two dimensions concerning the nature or process of knowing (how one comes to know). According to Hofer and Pintrich (1997), the two dimensions concerning the nature of knowledge are: (a) Simplicity of knowledge, ranging from the belief that knowledge consists of an accumulation of more or less isolated facts to the belief that knowledge consists of highly interrelated concepts, and (b) Certainty of knowledge, ranging from the belief that knowledge is absolute and unchanging to the belief that knowledge is tentative and evolving. The two dimensions concerning the nature of knowing are: (c) Source of knowledge, ranging from the conception that knowledge originates outside the self and resides in external authority, from which it may be transmitted, to the conception that knowledge is actively constructed by the person in interaction with others, and (d) Justification for knowing, ranging from justification of knowledge claims through observation and authority, or on the basis of what feels right, to the use of rules of inquiry and the evaluation and integration of different sources (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Accordingly, Hofer and Pintrich´s model differs from Schommer’s by omitting the nature of learning factors and adding another nature of knowing factor, justification. Additionally, Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri and Harrisson (2004) suggested a new dimension of epistemological beliefs, the Development of knowledge, which is related with the nature of the development of knowledge. For half a century, educational researchers have researched epistemological beliefs and the finding that the development of epistemological beliefs plays a crucial role in the learning process initiated a line of research which uncovered relationships between epistemological beliefs and learning strategies, motivation, conceptual change, text comprehension, reasoning, academic performance and socio-scientific argumentation skills (Bråten & Stromso, 2010b;. Muis et al., 2015).

Epistemological beliefs and Argumentation skills Recently, science education researchers have become interested in epistemological beliefs as a potential contributor to construction of socio-scientific arguments. A number of studies have shown that epistemological beliefs are associated with performances on argumentative reasoning. For example, Kuhn (1991) focused on the relationship between epistemological beliefs and solving ill-structured problems. She conducted interviews with a cross-sectional study of individuals from four age groups, ranging from teenagers to sixty-year-old adults. In the analysis of their argumentative reasoning, she identified three different underlying epistemological perspectives: absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist. In addition, Mason and Scirica (2006) focused on the contribution of overall epistemological understanding to socio-scientific argumentation skills, after controlling for topic knowledge and interest, in eighth graders. Sixty-two eighth graders were introduced to two controversial topics concerning global warming and genetically modified food, through the reading of a two-sided text on each topic. After reading, students were asked to generate an argument, a counterargument, and a rebuttal for each topic. Findings from hierarchical regression analyses showed that epistemological beliefs were a significant predictor of all three components of argumentation skills for both controversies. In addition, participants at the evaluativist level of overall epistemological beliefs generated arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals of a higher quality than participants at the multiplist level. The quality of arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals produced by the participants was scored according to the number and content adequateness of the reasons (justifications) given to support conclusions. Findings were substantially replicated by a domain-specific analysis of epistemological

1 049

Strand 7


beliefs. Topic knowledge moderately, but significantly, contributed to the production of rebuttals about transgenic food only, while topic interest did not play a significant role. This study supports Kuhn’s (1991) claim that epistemological beliefs and argumentation are related. Relevant is the empirical study of Wu and Tsai (2011), who investigated the relationship among 68 high school students’ epistemological beliefs, conceptual understanding regarding nuclear power usage, and their informal reasoning, regarding this issue, which is expressed through argumentation. Moreover, the students’ epistemological beliefs as well as their conceptual understanding for predicting their informal reasoning regarding this controversy was also examined. Results indicated that students’ beliefs about the justification of scientific knowledge were significantly correlated with their arguments quality. Also, the results showed that students’ conceptual understanding regarding an SSI is correlated with their arguments quality. In their study, students’ rebuttal construction was viewed as the indicator for their informal reasoning quality. If a student proposed more rebuttals, he/she was regarded as having better reasoning quality in their study. A series of regression analyses further confirmed that students’ conceptual understanding and their epistemological beliefs regarding the justification of scientific knowledge were significant predictors for students’ informal reasoning on SSI. So, the main findings of the different empirical studies indicate that epistemological beliefs contribute to the number and/or the quality of argument, counterarguments, and rebuttals and are related to argumentation skills. That means that the skill of generating valid and supported arguments about controversies is associated with higher levels of representation about knowledge and knowing. The contribution of epistemological beliefs to the type of the socioscientific arguments has not yet been investigated.

Prior Knowledge and Argumentation skills Discussions of SSI in the science education literature are frequently accompanied by the assumption that individuals’ content knowledge contributes significantly to their reasoning and argumentation in the context of SSI (Sadler & Fowler, 2006). For example, various researches (Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b) articulated this position as they explored how content knowledge influenced the negotiation and resolution of SSI. On the other hand, there are evidence showing that conceptual understanding of an issue does not determine the quality of thinking skills used in the domain (Kuhn, 1991). For example, Means and Voss (1996) argue that content knowledge did account for a greater number of responses, but these quantitative differences did not necessary lead to higher quality of informal reasoning and argumentation. In contrast, Iordanou and Constantinou (2015) finding suggests that an adequate level of topic knowledge is required for students to engage in high quality argumentation, showing that possession of topic knowledge is probably a necessary but not a sufficient condition for skilled scientific argumentation. So, according to the main findings of the different empirical studies it seems that there is no consensus among scholars for the relationship between prior knowledge and argumentation skills. Additional research that can describe more robustly the relationship between conceptual understanding and argumentation skills is needed. The contribution of prior knowledge to the type of the socio-scientific arguments has not yet been investigated.

The Present study This study aimed at examining possible relationships between epistemological beliefs, prior knowledge, the number, the quality and the type of arguments on socio-scientific issues. We used socio-scientific issues because they are complex, open-ended, contentious dilemmas, with scientific, political, social, economic and ethical aspects, with no definitive answers and therefore are ideal candidates for the application of argumentation (Sadler, 2004b; Sadler & 1 050

Strand 7


Zeidler, 2005b) and the construction of different types of arguments. Given these aims, we set out to answer three questions in our investigation: (1). Is there a relationship between undergraduate education students’ epistemological beliefs, prior knowledge and the number of arguments that they construct on a controversial socio-scientific topic? (2). Is there a relationship between undergraduate education students’ epistemological beliefs, prior knowledge and the quality of arguments that they construct in a controversial socio-scientific topic? (3). Is there a relationship between undergraduate education students’ epistemological beliefs, prior knowledge and the types of arguments that they construct on a controversial socio-scientific topic? On the basis of theoretical assumptions and previous researches (Mason & Scirica, 2006; Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Wu & Tsai, 2011), we hypothesized that the undergraduate education students’ epistemological beliefs and prior topic Knowledge would be significantly related to the number, quality and types of arguments that they construct in socio-scientific topic. We expected that undergraduate students’ with more sophisticated epistemological beliefs and higher prior knowledge would construct more and higher quality of scientific arguments as well as more types of arguments. Also, we hypothesized that undergraduate education students’ epistemological beliefs are strongest predictors than topic prior knowledge of students’ construction of socio-scientific arguments regarding the number, the quality and the type of arguments.

METHOD Participants Participants were 243 undergraduate education students at the University of Cyprus, 93% females and 7% males, with an overall mean age of 21 (SD=1,5). Students were between second and fourth year of their study. Participation in the research was optional.

Materials and coding Socio-scientific Issue Scenarios Three different SSI-dilemmas were developed and used in the present study (a) SSI 1: Usage or not usage of vaccines against the NUEVO flu virus. (b) SSI 2: Consumption of bottled vs tap water. (c) SSI 3: Usage of underground vs overhead high voltage lines in residential areas. The text of each SSI-scenario was one A4 text divided into three parts. The first text was a 200-word text, the second one was a 160-word text and the third one was a 176 word-text. All the texts were developed by the authors of the article and contained conflicting information, presenting different views on the scenarios dilemmas. More specifically, the first part of each text was a neutral introduction to the SSI-dilemma. The second part of the text introduced one position of the dilemma, whereas the third part presented the opposing position of the dilemma. Both positions were supported with evidence and were introduced in a balanced manner for the aspects examined. Each text and corresponding evidence were printed on separate sheets of paper and were presented to the participants in order to construct arguments. Participants were randomly assigned to complete one of the three SSI. One third of the participants (N = 81) complete the first topic, usage or not usage of vaccines against the Nuevo flu virus, another one third of the participants completed the second topic, on the Consumption of bottled vs tap water topic, and another one third of the participants completed the third topic on the Usage of underground vs overhead high voltage lines in residential areas topic.

Epistemological beliefs measures To assess participants’ epistemological beliefs, we used both the multidimensional perspective and the developmental perspective. The literature review on epistemological beliefs suggests using both perspectives to acquire a more comprehensive understanding of 1 051

Strand 7


epistemological beliefs (Hofer, 2004). Specifically, we used the Dimensions of Epistemological Beliefs toward Science (DEBS) Instrument (Baytelman & Constantinou, 2015) and the Dinosaur instrument, which was developed by Kuhn and coworkers (Kuhn, et al., 2008). The DEBS Instrument is a questionnaire based on the multidimensional perspective of epistemological beliefs. The 30-item DEBS Instrument captures three dimensions concerning knowledge −certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge and development of knowledge− and two dimensions concerning knowing – source of knowledge and justification of knowledge. Each dimension consisted of six items and the items were rated on a four-point Likert-scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). High scores on this measure are supposed to represent more sophisticated beliefs, while low scores represent less sophisticated beliefs. Examples of items of epistemological dimensions are: For Certainty dimension “What is considered to be certain knowledge about a scientific issue today may be considered to be false tomorrow”. For Simplicity dimension “With respect to knowledge about scientific issues, there are seldom connections among different issues”. For Development dimension “Sometimes scientists change their minds about what is true in science”. For Source dimension “My personal judgements about scientific issues have little value compared to what I can learn about them from books and articles”. For Justification dimension “I understand scientific issues better when I think through them myself, and not only read about them”. To assess epistemological beliefs from the developmental perspective (general epistemological level), we used the dinosaur scenario-based instrument (Kuhn et al., 2008). The dinosaur scenario-based instrument presented two contradictory theories regarding dinosaurs extinction and one open ended question that was asked. The question asked “Could anyone ever be certain about why dinosaurs became extinct? If not, what would help us become more certain?” Because the Dinosaur phenomena are situated in a pre-human era, the possibility of the direct observation by humans that an absolutist conception requires is precluded. The only way in which knowledge can advance is by means of the positive, constructive role of human theorizing and its coordination with various forms of indirect evidence (Kuhn et al., 2008). Responses were scored 0-5 using a rubric for epistemological levels, which were classified into five categories according epistemological development: Absolutist, Absolutist-Multiplist, Multiplist, Multiplist-Evaluativist, Evaluativist. For dinosaur scenario based instrument, Inter-rater reliability was conducted by the first author and an independent judge using 100% of the tests. Reliability was estimated at 90% (Cohens’ k=.90), with all disagreements resolved in conference by discussion in the presence of the first author and the independent judge.

Prior Knowledge measures To assess students’ prior knowledge, we asked them to answer five open ended questions and to construct a concept map. The open ended questions were scored 0-2, on the basis of their correctness and completeness, by the first author and an independent judge. For the concept map, students were asked to use a list of ten concepts, relevant to each SSI, to create a concept map describing the appropriate relationships between the relevant concepts. Using a scoring system reported in the literature (Kyza, E., Constantinou, C., & Spanoudes, G., 2011) for each student concept map, we counted the number of appropriate concepts and the number of appropriate relationships between concepts. The minimum possible total score for each concept map was 0 and the maximum possible total score was 70. For open ended questions and concept map of each SSI, inter-rater reliability was conducted by the first author and an independent judge using 30% of the tests of each SSI questionnaire. Reliability was estimated at 92% (Cohens’ k=.92), with all disagreements resolved after discussion between the two coders. Following this, the first author coded the remaining tests.

1 052

Strand 7


Argument construction For each topic-dilemma, students were asked to formulate arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals providing justifications for one of the two claims of the dilemma. For example for the topic “Usage or not usage of vaccines against the NUEVO flu virus”, students were asked to answer following questions: 1. Are you for or against vaccination of NUEVO flu virus; 2. If you want to convince a friend about your position, what arguments will you propose to convince him/her? 3. If somebody support an opposite position from you on this issue, which arguments may he/she have? 4. According to the argument you have mentioned in Part B, can you write down your opposite ideas to justify your position? The variability of arguments was considered in terms of social, economic, ethical, ecological and scientific aspects (Wu & Tsai, 2011). For each topic-dilemma, therefore, a student could argue in favor of one or other view. For each participant we computed the valid number of arguments counterarguments and rebuttals constructed by adding. Their arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals were considered valid, if they involved the presentation of a claim and the legitimacy of that claim was improved through its justification. Justifications could grounded in scientific data (scientific arguments) as well as considerations of the social, economic, ecological and ethical implications. The main focus was on analyzing individual socio-scientific arguments. The quality of arguments (for arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals) constructed by the participants was scored based on a scoring developed in the present study, based on coding scheme of Sadler and Fowler (2006). The quality of arguments was assessed according to the number and content adequateness of the evidences (justifications) given to support claims. Thus, no simple assertion was accepted but rather arguments supported by justifications. Arguments with more evidence of acceptable reasons are to be considered as stronger (Sadler & Fowler, 2006). The quality of arguments produced was scored 0-4 as presented in Table 1. Table 1. Categories and scores of arguments based on their quality. Categories Quality of argument C1 No justification provided C2 No completely valid justification (without evidence) provided. C3 Valid argument with valid justification supported by one simple reason C4 Valid argument with valid justification supported by one strong reason

C5

Valid argument with valid justification supported by one stronger reason, with a reference

Example of arguments I prefer bottled water I prefer bottled water because it is better.

Score 0 points 1 point

I prefer water because the water supply to manufacture a plastic bottle bottled large amounts of oil used. I prefer bottled water because the presence of organic pollutants in tap water in combination with chlorine, with which is chlorinated the tap water, produce additional harmful substances for the body and endanger our health. I prefer bottled water because the presence of organic pollutants in tap water in combination with chlorine, with which is chlorinated the tap water, produce additional harmful substances for the body and endanger our health. (American Journal of Epidemiology, 1998).

2 points

3 points

4 points

Inter-rater reliability was conducted by the first author and an independent judge using 30% of the tests of each SSI questionnaire. Reliability was estimated at 94% (Cohens’ k=.94), with

1 053

Strand 7


all disagreements resolved after discussion between the two coders. Following this, the first author coded the remaining tests.

Procedure Each participant participated in 3 sessions. In the first session the epistemological beliefs measures were administered. The first session lasted 40 min. The second session took place 10 min later. In the second session, participants were administered the prior knowledge task ant that lasted 40 min. The third session took place 30 min later. The order of tasks in the third session was: (a) reading the SSI scenario on one of the three topics, (b) reading the SSI information related to the SSI scenario, (c) arguments construction task. Students were given unlimited time to carry out the third session’ tasks. This session lasted from 40 min to 60 min. The data collection lasted 5 academic semesters, because of the reduced number of education students per semester at the University of Cyprus. The first author did the data collection, which took place at the University of Cyprus.

RESULTS To answer the research questions of this study, to what extend epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge underlying the SSI can affect undergraduate education students' number, quality and different types of socio-scientific arguments, multiple regression analyses were carried with the number, the quality and the number of the different types -social, ethical, economic, scientific, ecological- of arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals constructed as dependent variables (for the three SSI of the study together). In each analysis, scores of (a) each dimension of epistemological beliefs and (b) general epistemological level and (c) prior knowledge were the predictor variables.

Number of arguments To answer our first research question, regarding the relationship between undergraduate students’ epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge and the number of arguments that they construct on controversial socio-scientific topic, we conducted multiple regression analyses to see whether epistemological beliefs (epistemological dimensions and epistemological level separately) and prior knowledge would predict the number of arguments (arguments, counterarguments, rebuttals). Epistemological beliefs (dimensions and level separately) variables entered in the first step while the prior knowledge variables (concept map and open-ended questions) entered in the second step. The results of the hierarchical regression analyses for variables predicting number of arguments, counter-arguments and rebuttals showed that only epistemological dimension simplicity of knowledge entered into each equation in step one explain a statistically significant amount of variance in the number of arguments (R2=.05, F(5,231)=2.65, p

Part 7 Strand 7 Discourse and argumentation in

Part 7 Strand 7 Discourse and argumentation in

Suggest Documents

Part 7 Strand 7 Discourse and argumentation in ...

STRAND 7 Discourse and Argumentation in Science

Part 7

The 7 C's of Argumentation

7 Discourse Analysis

Part 7 Roofs

Part G-7: References

PART 7 - THE INQUIRY

Part-III-7

Conference Part 7

Part 7 - Univeso Integration

mathematical and everyday discourse - Cerme 7

7 , ( ( 7 ( ( 7 7 ( 7 7 ( 7 7

N-400 Part 7 - Libsyn

BS 476: Part 7 - hkfsd.gov.hk

C PART 7 _ STEERING CLUTCHES

translation and meaning part 7 - Maastricht University

the view of mathematics and argumentation - Cerme 7

Classroom Community and Discourse: How Argumentation ... - Eric

Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse ...

234 67897 7 4 7 7 2 234 67897 7 4 7 7 2

234 67897 7 4 7 7 2 234 67897 7 4 7 7 2

Orthodontics. Part 7: Fact and fantasy in orthodontics

THE INTEGRALS IN GRADSHTEYN AND RYZHIK. PART 7 ...