An analytical instrument for coding and assessing argumentative dialogues in science teaching contexts

Abstract

Most of the tools developed in the area of Science Education aimed at analyzing either the product or the process of argumentation do not consider the following: (a) arguments are a part of dialogues, (b) dialogues present different objectives, (c) dialogues start from different assumptions, and (d) dialogues shape the roles and moves of interlocutors. This paper intends to address the analysis of argumentative exchanges within educational science dialogues considering several aspects of argumentation that have neglected to be investigated in the field of education, such as the relations among individual moves and the dialogues they are part of, and the influence of such moves on knowledge construction. Toward this purpose, a proposed tool is presented, which describes argumentative dialogues in science teaching contexts across the varied and interrelated dimensions. This tool, consisting of six analytical aspects, is applied to high school chemistry students' argumentative dialogues taking place during modeling activities. Data collection (involving audio and video recording plus observations made by the researchers) revealed the main affordances of this tool as follows: (a) favoring an understanding of the individual and collective students' intentions; (b) enabling the characterization of argumentative discourse beyond the moves of refuting, questioning and providing support; (c) enabling the identification of whether knowledge construction has occurred; and (d) the possibility of analyzing teaching situations across different contexts. Thus, the tool supports the descriptions and analyses of the scientific argumentation process and the associated knowledge construction by students.

Secondary school students' responses to epistemic uncertainty during an ecological citizen science inquiry

“…The result of not reporting rat tracks is based on the notion that they “ can't say that they are rat tracks,” rather than knowing that they are not rat tracks, which further implies the high risk of error in reporting rat tracks. Argumentation that incorporates the interpretation of evidence and the related error is typical of scientific research that is grounded on empirical observations (Latour, 1987; Martins & Macagno, 2022). The outcome of the research activity can be knowing something with a certain probability or even not knowing something at all.…”

Informing research on generative artificial intelligence from a language and literacy perspective: A meta‐synthesis of studies in science education

“…According to Bakhtin (1981), language use is inherently dialogic as a multitude of voices are incorporated through "a link in the chain of speech communication" between individuals (p.89). In the context of classroom discourse, dialogical moves open the conversation to multiple views for critical thinking and argumentation, while authoritative moves convey and evaluate information from a fixed perspective (Martins & Macagno, 2022). Several studies in LLSE have examined how dialogic interaction can be achieved through deliberate classroom discourse shifts that encourage and normalize the critique of ideas.…”

Analysis of Teachers’ Knowledge on Argumentation: A Study of Portfolios of Chemistry Pre-service Teachers

“…In the last 20 years there has been an increase in the number of national and international publications about argumentation in the teaching of science (e.g., Duschl & Osborne, 2002;Zembal-Saul, 2009;Venville & Dawson, 2010;Ogan-Bekiroglu & Eskin, 2012;Martins & Macagno, 2022;Martins, 2022). This is because teaching supported by argumentation can contribute to science-learning as well as to the development of the argumentative capacity of students.…”