Palabras clave
argumentación socio-científica
razonamiento basado en modelos
esquemas argumentativos
creencias de estudiantes
Cómo citar
Resumen
En el presente artículo se tiene como objetivos identificar los modelos mentales que representan una problemática sociocientífica específica para estudiantes colombianos en secundaria y analizar los esquemas argumentales que implementan para justificarlos. Utilizando un diseño mixto, cincuenta y dos participantes (52 personas, 31 mujeres y 21 hombres con edades entre los 15 y los 23 años de edad; en niveles escolares de secundaria y pregrado) analizaron la posibilidad de implementar un proyecto de explotación minera en una región bajo control administrativo de una comunidad indígena colombiana. Los análisis cualitativos dan cuenta de la presencia de 11 modelos para pensar la problemática sociocientífica propuesta y un rango limitado de esquemas argumentales (11); los análisis cuantitativos a través de ANOVAs dan cuenta de diferencias significativas para la media de argumentos por grado y modelo mental. Se discuten los resultados resaltando lo conveniente que resulta explorar el discurso argumental de estudiantes desde una perspectiva cognitiva y desarrollista con importantes implicaciones para el ámbito educativo.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2011). Fostering model-based school scientific argumentation among prospective science teachers. US-China Education Review, 8(5), 718–723.
Åkerblom, D., & Lindahl, M. (2017). Authenticity and the relevance of discourse and figured worlds in secondary students' discussions of socioscientific issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 205-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.025
Amossy, R. (2006). L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris : Armand Colin.
Amossy, R. (2014). L'éthos et ses doubles contemporains. Perspectives disciplinaires. Langage et Société, 3, 13-30. DOI: 10.3917/ls.149.0013
Amossy, R. (2018). Introduction : la dimension argumentative du discours - enjeux théoriques et pratiques. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [En ligne], 20, 1-13. Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/aad/2560. DOI:10.4000/aad.2560
Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: a model-based framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5
Buck, Z. E., Lee, H. S., & Flores, J. (2014). I am sure there may be a planet there: student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2391-2420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.924641
Coolican, H. (2005). Métodos de investigación y estadística en psicología. Bogotá, Colombia: Editorial El Manual Moderno.
Crawford B., & Jordan R.C. (2013) Inquiry, models, and complex reasoning to transform learning in environmental education. In: Krasny and Dillon (eds.) Transdisciplinary Research in Environmental Education. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Develaki, M. (2016). Key-Aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School Science Models: Some Units for Teaching Contextualized Scientific Methodology. Interchange, 47(3), 297-327. DOI 10.1007/s10780-016-9277-7
Develaki, M. (2017). Using Computer Simulations for Promoting Model-based Reasoning. Science & Education, 26(7-9), 1001-1027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9944-9
Doury, M. & Plantin, C. (2015). Une approche langagière et interactionnelle de l’argumentation. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15, 1-25. DOI : 10.4000/aad.2006
Doury, M., Quet, M., & Tseronis, A. (2015). Le façonnage de la critique par les dispositifs. Le cas du débat sur les nanotechnologies. Semen. Revue de Sémio-linguistique des Textes et Discours, 39, 1-11. Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/semen/10472
Fowler, S., Zeidler, D. & Sadler, T. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909
Gilbert, S.W. (2011). Models based science teaching: Understanding and using mental models. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Gutierrez, M. F. (2017). Escritura colaborativa de textos en quinto grado: Razonamiento y argumentación causal sobre un fenómeno físico. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación 17(1), 1-25. DOI10.15517/aie.v17i1.27291
Hay, D. B., & Pitchford, S. (2016). Curating blood: how students’ and researchers’ drawings bring potential phenomena to light. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2596-2620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1253901
Herman B.C., Sadler T.D., Zeidler D.L., Newton M.H. (2018) A Socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In: Reis G., Scott J. (Eds) International Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Environmental Education: A Reader. Environmental Discourses in Science Education, vol 3. Springer, Cham
Hsu, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2017). Prompting students to make socioscientific decisions: embedding metacognitive guidance in an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 964-979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1312036
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(5), 1131-1151. DOI 10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z
Kathpalia, S. S., & See, E. K. (2016). Improving argumentation through student blogs. System, 58, 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.03.002
Kerbatch-Orecchioni, C. (1992): Les Interactions Verbales, 2. Paris : Armand Colin
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues‐based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512
Koh, N. K. (2016). Approaches to Teaching Financial Literacy: Evidence-Based Practices in Singapore Schools. In International Handbook of Financial Literacy (pp. 499-513), Singapore: Springer.
Kragten, M., Admiraal, W., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Students’ learning activities while studying biological process diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1915-1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1057775
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46-53. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X15569530
Kuhn, D., & Modrek, A. (2018). Do reasoning limitations undermine discourse?. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(1), 97-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1388846
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2017). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students' thinking and writing. Routledge.
Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?. Cognitive Development 23, 435–451. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006
Kuhn, D., Ramsey, S., & Arvidsson, T. S. (2015). Developing multivariable thinkers. Cognitive Development, 35, 92-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.11.003
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285-302. DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
Lee, C. B., Koh, N. K., Cai, X. L., & Quek, C. L. (2012). Children's use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems: Children's monetary decision making. Australian Journal of Education, 56(1), 22-39. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/aje/vol56/iss1/3
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross‐context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807. doi:10.1002/sce.21021
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2015). Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 48, 26–53. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/crrarpub/26
Meyer, H. (2018). Teachers’ Thoughts on student decision making during engineering design lessons. Education Sciences, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010009
Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2017). Analysis of inquiry materials to explain complexity of chemical reasoning in physical chemistry students’ argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1322-1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21407
Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2015). Conceptualizing metalinguistic understanding in writing/Conceptualización de la competencia metalingüística en la escritura. Cultura & Educación, 27(4), 839-867. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2015.1089387
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(4), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717745544
Pennington, D., Bammer, G., Danielson, A., Gosselin, D., Gouvea, J., Habron, G., ... & Wei, C. (2016). The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 278-286. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0335-8
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Pitiporntapin, S., Yutakom, N., Sadler, T. D., & Hines, L. (2018). Enhancing pre-service science teachers’ understanding and practices of socioscientific issues (ssis)-based teaching via an online mentoring program. Asian Social Science, 14(5), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/viewFile/73670/41240
Plantin, C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions : principes et méthode pour l’étude du discours « émotionné ». Berne, Suisse : Peter Lang.
Plantin, C. (2014). Dictionnaire de l’argumentation - Une introduction notionnelle aux études d’argumentation. Lyon, France : ENS Editions.
Plantin, C. (2015). Emotion and affect. En K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel, (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, (pp. 514-523). Boston: John Wiley & Sons.
Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-learn: a framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-16. DOI:10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128
Sadler, T. & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L. & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: a multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622-1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481
Sanders, T. J., & Spooren, W. P. (2015). Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics, 53(1), 53-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0034
Smyrnaiou, Z., Petropoulou, E., & Sotiriou, M. (2015). Applying Argumentation Approach in STEM Education: A Case Study of the European Student Parliaments Project in Greece. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(12), 1618-1628. DOI:10.12691/education-3-12-20
Sorensen, A. E., Jordan, R. C., Shwom, R., Ebert-May, D., Isenhour, C., McCright, A. M., … Robinson, J. M. (2016). Model-based reasoning to foster environmental and socio-scientific literacy in higher education. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 287-294. DOI 10.1007/s13412-015-0352-7
Stephens, R. G., Dunn, J. C., & Hayes, B. K. (2018). Are there two processes in reasoning? The dimensionality of inductive and deductive inferences. Psychological Review, 125(2), 218-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000088
Toulmin, S.E. (1993). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Traverso, V. (2009). The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2385-2399. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.047
Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1958. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037099
Tsai, C. Y. (2015). Improving students' PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.987712
Uluçinar, U., & Aypay, A. (2016). A model of decision-making based on critical thinking. Education and Science, 41(185), 251-268. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2016.4639
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C., Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Van Eemeren, F., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck, H. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2016). A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argument & Computation, 6(3), 219-245. DOI: 10.1080/19462166.2015.1123772
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, G., & Clement, J. (2015). Identifying multiple levels of discussion-based teaching strategies for constructing scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 82-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.966257
Zangori, L., Vo, T., Forbes, C. T., & Schwarz, C. V. (2017). Supporting 3rd-grade students model-based explanations about groundwater: a quasi-experimental study of a curricular intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1421-1442. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1336683
Esta revista científica se encuentra registrada bajo la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional. Por lo tanto, esta obra se puede reproducir, distribuir y comunicar públicamente en formato digital, siempre que se reconozca el nombre de los autores y a la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Se permite citar, adaptar, transformar, autoarchivar, republicar y crear a partir del material, para cualquier finalidad (incluso comercial), siempre que se reconozca adecuadamente la autoría, se proporcione un enlace a la obra original y se indique si se han realizado cambios. La Pontificia Universidad Javeriana no retiene los derechos sobre las obras publicadas y los contenidos son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores, quienes conservan sus derechos morales, intelectuales, de privacidad y publicidad. El aval sobre la intervención de la obra (revisión, corrección de estilo, traducción, diagramación) y su posterior divulgación se otorga mediante una licencia de uso y no a través de una cesión de derechos, lo que representa que la revista y la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana se eximen de cualquier responsabilidad que se pueda derivar de una mala práctica ética por parte de los autores. En consecuencia de la protección brindada por la licencia de uso, la revista no se encuentra en la obligación de publicar retractaciones o modificar la información ya publicada, a no ser que la errata surja del proceso de gestión editorial. La publicación de contenidos en esta revista no representa regalías para los contribuyentes.