Enhancing Dialogic Argumentation in Mathematics and Science

Abstract

This paper reports on a teacher professional development (PD) programme addressing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and

Three Dimensions of Dialogicity in Dialogic Argumentation

“…According to them, in a dialogic approach, the teacher is open to various points of views, whereas in an authoritative approach, the teacher focusses only on the scientific perspective and ignores students' views. Several studies have used Mortimer and Scott's framework to analyse teacher talk (Bansal, 2018;Lehesvuori et al, 2018;Lehesvuori et al, 2017). Following Mortimer and Scott, researchers have considered dialogic teacher talk, including, for example, eliciting students' views through open-ended questions, receiving students' ideas without judging them, asking follow-up questions and prompting student contributions (e.g.…”

“…Subsequently, we started to analyse teacher talk. We analysed whether teacher talk was dialogic in the sense of being open to several perspectives (Mortimer & Scott, 2003;Lehesvuori et al, 2017;Lehesvuori et al, 2018). Furthermore, we analysed what kind of dialogic features teacher talk had.…”

“…It is stressed that dialogicity is an essential element in high-quality, whole-class discussion, although the concept of dialogicity has slightly different meaning or emphasis in different studies (see the recent handbook Wegerif et al, 2019). Three dimensions of dialogicity have been emphasised: dialogic teacher talk (Bansal, 2018;Lehesvuori, Hähkiöniemi, Jokiranta, Nieminen, Hiltunen, & Viiri, 2017;Lehesvuori, Ramnarain & Viiri, 2018;Mortimer & Scott, 2003), students' engagement with each other's ideas through dialogic moves (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2009;Webb et al, 2014) and general organising for dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2004;Stein, Engle, Smith, & Hughes, 2008). A common feature in these dimensions is the openness to diverse viewpoints instead of focusing only on one.…”

Teacher orchestration of classroom interaction in science: exploring dialogic and authoritative passages in whole-class discussions

“…Furthermore, there are even fewer studies applying this explicitness to theory development on how authoritative and dialogic passages build on each other. Delving into the challenge of orchestrating meaningful classroom discussion could provide educational researchers and educators with more information about why dialogicity is so infrequent in science classrooms, despite it being increasingly adapted to curricula through studentcenteredness (Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE], 2016;Lehesvuori, Chan, Ramnarain, & Viiri, 2017) and teacher education through interventions (Sedova, Sedlacek, & Svaricek, 2016;Lehesvuori, Hähkiöniemi, Jokiranta, Nieminen, Hiltunen, & Viiri, 2017).…”

Secuencia de tareas para enseñar argumentación en ciencias a profesorado en formación inicial a través de CoRubric. Ejemplificación en una actividad sobre una central salina

“…La evaluación como eje de diseño y el uso de e-rúbricas como instrumento de evaluación de la capacidad de argumentación La propuesta de secuenciación de tareas que se presenta se centra en la posibilidad de mejorar la capacidad de argumentación del PFI mediante el concepto de 'evaluar para aprender'(Folkes y Carmichael, 2006). Algunas propuestas, como las deLehesvuori et al (2017), centran su atención en el proceso de evaluación para hacer interiorizar los criterios con los que luego se van a evaluar los argumentos y así permitir una mayor reflexión. En dichas propuestas se persigue aplicar, a través de variedad de actividades y metodologías de evaluación, la reflexión sobre la práctica, ya sea con actividades de autoevaluación(Martínez, Tellado y Raposo, 2013;Hanrahan y Isaacs, 2001), con actividades de autoevaluación entre pares (Mayweg-Paus, Macagno y Kuhn, 2016) o con, lo que algunos autores denominan evaluación 360 grados, actividades en la que se integran todas estas metodologías(Tee y Ahmed, 2014).…”