Trabajar la argumentación a través de un juego de rol¿debemos instalar el cementerio nuclear?

  1. Crujeiras-Pérez, Beatriz 1
  2. Martín-Gámez, Carolina 2
  3. Díaz-Moreno, Naira 3
  4. Fernández-Oliveras, Alicia 4
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

  2. 2 Universidad de Málaga
    info

    Universidad de Málaga

    Málaga, España

    ROR https://ror.org/036b2ww28

  3. 3 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

  4. 4 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Mostrar afiliacións +
Revista:
Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas

ISSN: 0212-4521,  2174-6486

Ano de publicación: 2020

Volume: 38

Número: 3

Páxinas: 125-142

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.5565/REV/ENSCIENCIAS.2888 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas

Resumo

This paper analyses the argumentative operations performed by pre-service teachers during a role play about setting down a nuclear waste deposit. The types of knowledge used for constructing their arguments when they try to reach a final agreement are also studied. The participants are undergraduate students from the degree of Pre-school and Primary Teacher Training at three different Spanish universities. Data collection includes video recordings of the role play. The findings point to the students’ ability to make statements and justify their arguments, although they find it difficult to use other argumentative elements in their speech. Moreover, social and scientific-technological knowledge are proved to be the most used types of knowledge in the participants’ search of a consensual decision about setting down the nuclear deposit.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

Trabajo financiado por FEDER/Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades-Agencia Estatal de Investigación/Proyectos EDU2017-82915R y PGC2018-094114-A-I00, así como por los proyectos PPJI2018-06 y PID18-363 financiados por la Universidad de Granada.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Acar, O., Turkmen, L. y Roychoudhury, A. (2009). Student Difficulties in Socio‐scientific Argumentation and Decision‐making Research Findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902991805
  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision-making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690403
  • Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6
  • Archila, P. A. (2015). Using history and philosophy of science to promote students’ argumentation. A teaching-learning sequence based on the discovery of oxygen. Science & Education, 24(9), 1201-1226.
  • Archila, P. A. (2016). ¿Cómo formar profesores de ciencias que promuevan la argumentación?: lo que sugieren avances actuales de investigación. Profesorado: Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 20(3), 399-432.
  • Baytelman, A. y Constantinou, C. P. (2018). Investigating the relationship between content knowledge and the construction of ethical arguments on socioscientific issues. En O. E. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran y P. Childs (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education, Part 8: Scientific Literacy and Socio Scientific Issues (co-ed. J. Alexis y M. Lindahl) (pp. 1031-1038). Dublín: Dublin City University.
  • Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. En M. Linn, E. Davis y P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Berland, L. K. y Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  • Blanco Anaya, P. y Díaz de Bustamante, J. (2014). Argumentación y uso de pruebas: realización de inferencias sobre una secuencia de icnitas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(2), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1009
  • Bravo-Torija, B. y Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2014). Articulación del uso de pruebas y el modelo de flujo de energía en los ecosistemas en argumentos de alumnado de bachillerato. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1281
  • Byrne, J., Ideland, M., Malmberg, C. y Grace, M. (2014). Climate Change and Everyday Life: Repertoires children use to negotiate a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1491-1509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891159
  • Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M. y Norton‐Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277
  • Cakici, Y. y Bayir, E. (2012). Developing Children’s Views of the Nature of Science Through Role Play. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 1075-1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.647109
  • Cebrián-Robles, D., España-Ramos, E. y Franco-Mariscal, J. (2018). Diseño de un juego de rol sobre un problema socio-científico relacionado con las centrales nucleares para iniciar en el activismo y el uso de pruebas a maestros de primaria en formación inicial. En C. Martínez Losada y S. García Barros (Coords.), 28 encuentros de didáctica de las ciencias experimentales. Iluminando el cambio educativo (pp. 1241-1246). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.
  • Christenson, N., Chang Rundgreen, S. N. y Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyze Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x
  • Dorion, K. R. (2009). Science through drama: A multiple case exploration of the characteristics of drama activities used in secondary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2247-2270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802712699
  • Driver, R., Newton, P. y Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Drumond Vieira, R., da Rocha Bernardo, J. R., Evagorou, M. y Florentino de Melo, V. (2015). Argumentation in Science Teacher Education: The simulated jury as a resource for teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1113-1139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1022623
  • Erduran, S. y Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Research in argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Evagorou, M., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. y Osborne, J. (2012). «Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?». A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making, International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
  • Evagorou, M. y Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring Young Students’ Collaborative Argumentation Within a Socioscientific Issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
  • Furman, M., Luzuriaga, M., Taylor, I., Anauati, M. V. y Podestá, M. E. (2018). Abriendo la"caja negra"del aula de ciencias: un estudio sobre la relación entre las prácticas de enseñanza sobre el cuerpo humano y las capacidades de pensamiento que se promueven en los alumnos de séptimo grado. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 36(2), 81-103. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2519
  • Grace, M., Lee, Y. C., Asshoff, R. y Wallin, A. (2015). Student Decision-Making about a Globally Familiar Socioscientific Issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1855-1874. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1054000
  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. En S. Erduran y M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom- based research (pp. 91-115). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Jin, H., Mehl, C. E. y Lan, D. H. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(8), 1132-1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21237
  • Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770935
  • Kifshe, R. (2012) Nature of Science and Decision Making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67-100. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199856800.003.0013
  • Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Tonning, V. y Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20133
  • Ladrousse, G. P. (1989). Role play. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Matas, A. (2003). Los juegos de rol como recurso formativo. Una aplicación en educación ambiental. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 55(2), 281-291.
  • Martín-Gámez, C. y Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socioscientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
  • McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher. Lexington, MA: DC. Heath & Co.
  • McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
  • McSharry, G. y Jones, S. (2000). Role-play in Science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 82, 73-82.
  • Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (MECD) (2014). Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria. Madrid: MECD. Obtenido de https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2014/03/01/pdfs/BOE-A-2014-2222.pdf
  • Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (MECD) (2016). PISA 2015. Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de los Alumnos. Informe español. Madrid: MECD. Obtenido de http://iaqse.caib.es/documentos/avaluacions/pisa/pisa_2015/pisa_2015_preliminar_espanya.pdf
  • National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K12 Science Education: practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  • OECD (2017). PISA 2015. Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving, revised edition. París: OECD Publishing.
  • Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: Learning how to learn in school science. En B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin y C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 933-949). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. y Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S. y Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  • Real Decreto 126/2104, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, BOE núm. 52, de 1 de marzo de 2014, pp. 19349-19420.
  • Ryu, S. y Sandoval, W. A. (2015). The influence of group dynamics on collabortive argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(2), 335-351. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1338a
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  • Schreirer, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Londres: Sage.
  • Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016076
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wesselink, R., Dekker-Groen, A. M., Biemans, H. J. A. y Mulder, M. (2010). Using an instrument to analyse competence-based study programmes: Experiences of teachers in Dutch vocational education and training. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(6), 813-829. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220271003759249
  • Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. En N. G. Lederman y S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, volumen II (pp. 711-740). Routledge.
  • Zeidler, D. L. y Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific Issues: Theory and Practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173684
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. y Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  • Zohar, A. y Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
Fonte de datos: Dialnet