No abstract

Since the late 1990s, there has been consensus among educational researchers that argumentation should play a central role in science education. Although there has been extensive relevant research, it is not clear enough how oral argumentation spontaneously occurs in science teaching. This is particularly important with regard to the empirical evidence suggesting the effect of discussion of contradictory views on scientific learning. In order to contribute to the research on argumentation in science teaching, we conducted a study that aims to sketch a panoramic view of the uses of oral argumentation in Chilean middle-school science teaching. A total of 153 videotaped science lessons were observed, involving students aged 10-11 and 12-13. Wholeclass argumentative discourse was analysed as a function of thematic episodes and teachers' and students' utterances. Results suggest that argumentative discourse in which contradictory points of view are discussed is scarce but when it occurs it does so predominantly within discourse among students. On the contrary, argumentation aimed at justifying points of view is widely used, even more so when students are older.

No abstract

1Resumen Las habilidades de argumentación juegan un rol central en la formación universitaria. evidencia disponible muestra que los estudiantes universitarios cuentan con mejores habilidades argumentativas que sus pares no universitarios. sin embargo, no se sabe si esto se debe a su formación o si es un factor de autoselección. el objetivo de este estudio fue explorar el desarrollo de habilidades de argumentación en estudiantes de educación superior, de manera de contribuir al conocimiento acerca de la relación entre argumentación y educación superior (universitaria y técnico profesional) en Chile. se evaluaron las habilidades de argumentación escrita de 336 estudiantes de educación universitaria y educación superior técnica, provenientes de cinco carreras diferentes de dos instituciones de educación superior de santiago Chile, y dos cohortes distintas, al inicio y al final del año académico. se realizaron análisis descriptivos, correlacionales y análisis de covarianza. Los resultados muestran que los participantes presentan debilidades relativas en la capacidad de formular contra-argumentos; que en general avanzan significativamente en los sub-aspectos de aceptabilidad y suficiencia argumental; y que si se los controla por edad y medidas de rendimiento, los estudiantes universitarios avanzan en un año significativamente más que los de educación técnica. Por último, los resultados muestran que los alumnos universitarios que más avanzan son los que están bajo el promedio en la Prueba de selección universitaria (Psu). se discuten las implicancias de estos resultados para la educación superior en Chile.Palabras clave: educación superior, argumentación, desarrollo cognitivo. (PsU). the implications for chilean higher education is discussed. UNIVERSITY AND ARGUMENTATION SKILLS' DEVELOPMENT IN CHILE: AN EXPLORATORY AND COMPARATIVE STUDY AbstrAct Argumentation skills play an important role in higher education. Empirical evidence shows that higher education students have better argumentation skills than their peers without university studies. However, it is still unknown whether this is a product of higher education or self-selection. the goal of this study was to explore written argumentation skills development in chilean tertiary education, in order to contribute to the body of knowledge on the relationship between argumentation and higher education (university and vocational training

Experimental evidence has shown the effect of peer‐group argumentation on scientific concept development. However, questions regarding how and why it happens remain. The aim of this study is to contribute, with experimental evidence gathered in naturalistic settings (classrooms), to the understanding of the relationship between peer‐group argumentation and content knowledge learning, exploring the role that individual argumentative skills play. In total, sixty‐one fourth‐grade students (aged 9–10 years) participated in the study (thirty‐nine female). One teacher was invited to teach a thematic unit (Forces), with lesson plans especially developed to foster argumentation in the classroom. The second teacher taught as usual. Students’ conceptual understanding and argumentative skills were evaluated individually, both before and after the lessons. Although there were no differences in the immediate post‐test scores between groups (after controlling for pre‐test), the intervention group showed significantly higher scores in delayed post‐tests. Regression analyses showed that the ratio of argumentative utterances per minute of group work predicted students’ scores in delayed post‐test disciplinary content knowledge after controlling for initial levels of learning. Argumentation skill gains did not impact learning, but initial levels of argumentation skills predicted delayed scientific content knowledge post‐test.