The Use of Representations and Argumentative and Explanatory Situations

Abstract

This paper discusses the use of non-verbal representations in a modelling-based science teaching context, in which argumentative and explanatory situations occur. More specifically, we analyse how the students and teacher use representations in their discourse in modelling activities, and we discuss the relationships between the functions of these representations and the demands of the explanatory and argumentative situations that exist in that classroom. The data were collected by video recording all the classes in which a teaching sequence about intermolecular interactions was used-a topic which the students had not previously studied. In the activities, the students had to create, express, test, and discuss models in order to understand the difference between intermolecular and interatomic interactions, as well as their influences on the properties of substances. Initially, we selected excerpts of the recorded classes in which a nonverbal representation was used. Then, we used criteria to identify the argumentative and explanatory situations (previously defined), and we created categories for the functions of the representations that were used in order to analyse all the identified situations. The analysis supports conclusions indicating the relevance of the use of non-verbal representations in the construction, use, and defence of explanations. As the defence of explanations was the main context in which argumentative situations occurred in this study, our conclusions also indicate the contribution that representations make towards changing the status of the students' explanations.

Understanding metallic bonding: Structure, process and interaction by Rasch analysis

“…(2) The findings also have strong implications for the teaching and learning of metal malleability based on the free electron model. We acknowledge that students should be asked to construct models of physical phenomena (Oliveira, Justi, & Mendonça, 2015). In a similar way, after students are introduced to the free electron model, teachers may ask them to generate an explanation based on the model.…”

Constructing Scientific Explanations for Chemical Phenomena through Drawings among 8th-grade Students

“…For instance, Kelly and Jones (2008) showed that unless the drawings are purposefully integrated into practices, they may not always provide the expected benefits for student learning. Indeed, the potential benefits of drawings lie on their use in supporting other critical aspects of inquiry, such as making predictions, depicting models (Prain et al, 2009;Schwarz et al, 2009;Wilkerson-Jerde, Gravel, & Macrander, 2015), developing arguments (Oliveira, Justi, & Mendonça, 2015) and explaining (Chang et al, 2014;Parnafes, 2010). Otherwise, students might produce drawings as an isolated exercise, with little understandings of the underlying explanatory possibilities (Cooper et al, 2017).…”

Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches

“…Examples of this enactment include considering opposing viewpoints to critique and potentially refine ideas (Golanics and Nussbaum 2008) coming to an agreement on the most sensible solution (Cross et al 2008) and using argumentation to refocus attention away from personal positions and towards the reasons underlying those positions in light of alternatives (Hsu et al 2015). The distinction between justificatory and explanatory discourse is also evident in this group of studies (e.g., Asterhan et al 2012;Noroozi et al 2013;Oliveira et al 2015), as with Pattern 2. However, among Pattern 3 studies, attention to metalevel processes is more explicit, including knowledge of the formal qualities of single arguments and of argumentative sequences (Noroozi et al 2013), regulation of meta-cognition (Hsu et al 2015), acquisition of argumentation norms as a classroom discourse pattern (Yun and Kim 2015), and willingness to disagree (Kim et al 2007).…”