test Η Ρητή Χρήση του Mοντέλου Toulmin σε ένα Ομαδικό Διαλογικό Περιβάλλον, και οι Επιδράσεις του στην Κατανόηση της Έννοιας Συντονισμού «Δύναμη»: Μια Μελέτη Περίπτωσης|Research in Science & Technology Education

Η Ρητή Χρήση του Mοντέλου Toulmin σε ένα Ομαδικό Διαλογικό Περιβάλλον, και οι Επιδράσεις του στην Κατανόηση της Έννοιας Συντονισμού «Δύναμη»: Μια Μελέτη Περίπτωσης

¨Έρευνα για την Εκπαίδευση στις Φυσικές Επιστήμες και την Τεχνολογία, Τόμος 4, Αρ. 2 (2024), 13ο Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο ΕΝΕΦΕΤ, Ειδικό Τεύχος
PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Dec 29, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/riste.38004
ΚΩΣΤΑΣ ΝΑΟΥΜ
a:1:{s:5:"el_GR";s:43:"Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλίας";}
Βασίλης Κόλλιας
Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλίας
Διονύσιος Βαβουγυιός
Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλίας
Abstract

Σε αυτήν την εργασία παρουσιάζονται τα αποτελέσματα από την ανάλυση του διαλόγου μιας ομάδας γνωστικά αδύνατων μαθητών/μαθητριών της β΄ γυμνασίου, σε ένα διαλογικό περιβάλλον επιχειρηματολογίας, στο μάθημα της φυσικής και στο γνωστικό πεδίο «δύναμη και κίνηση». Το μαθησιακό περιβάλλον προκαλούσε τις διαισθητικές ιδέες των μαθητών/μαθητριών, έκανε ρητή χρήση του μοντέλου Toulmin και αξιοποιούσε την χρήση συμπερασματικών κανόνων μονής κατεύθυνσης ως προτεινόμενες εγγυήσεις. Η μικρογενετική ανάλυση του διαλόγου βασίστηκε στις θεωρητικές προσεγγίσεις της Θεωρίας Έννοιας Συντονισμού (Coordination Class Theory). Η ανάλυση έδειξε ότι η ρητή χρήση του μοντέλου Toulmin, οδήγησε στην εκδήλωση ασυμμετρίας μεταξύ διαισθητικών ιδεών και επιστημονικής γνώσης για την δύναμη, που αντιμετωπίστηκε με τον μηχανισμό της Iδιοανέλιξης κατά Κουάϊν (Quinian Bootstrapping) οδηγώντας σε εννοιολογική εξέλιξη των μαθητών/μαθητριών.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Research Article

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Ασλανίδης, Θ. (2021). Οι στάσεις και οι πεποιθήσεις των μαθητών/μαθητριών της α’ λυκείου των δημόσιων σχολείων της Κύπρου απέναντι στο μάθημα και την επιστήμη της φυσικής[Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης (ΑΠΘ), Σχολή Θετικών Επιστημών, Τμήμα Φυσικής]. https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/50024
Γκικοπούλου, Ο. (2013). Εννοιολογική αλλαγή στις φυσικές επιστήμες (Doctoral dissertation, Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (ΕΚΠΑ). Σχολή Θετικών Επιστημών. Τμήμα Μεθοδολογίας, Ιστορίας και Θεωρίας της Επιστήμης). https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/43476
Γκρίτζιος, Β. (2011). Συνεχιζόμενη εκπαίδευση των εκπαιδευτικών και διδασκαλία: Η διερεύνηση της σχέσης μεταξύ των επιστημολογικών πεποιθήσεων για τη διδασκαλία και μάθηση και της διδακτικής πράξης (Doctoral dissertation, Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (ΕΚΠΑ). Τμήμα Παιδαγωγικό Δημοτικής Εκπαίδευσης). https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/30273
ΙΕΠ. (2022). Πρόγραμμα σπουδών του μαθήματος της φυσικής των ά , β́ και γ΄ τάξεων γυμνασίου (2022). https://iep.edu.gr/el/nea-ps-provoli
Σκουμπουρδή, Χ. (2012). Σχεδιασμός ένταξης υλικών και μέσων στη μαθηματική εκπαίδευση των μικρών παιδιών. Εκδόσεις Πατάκη, Αθήνα.
Τζιμογιάννης, Α., & Σιορέντα, Α. (2007). Παράγοντες που καθορίζουν τις στάσεις των καθηγητών Φυσικών Επιστημών για τις ΤΠΕ στη διδασκαλία τους. Στο Α. Κατσίκης, Κ. Κώτσης, Α. Μικρόπουλος & Γ. Τσαπαρλής (Επιμ.) Πρακτικά 5ου Πανελλήνιου Συνεδρίου
Διδακτικής Φυσικών Επιστημών και Νέες Τεχνολογίες στην Εκπαίδευση (τεύχος Γ΄), (σ. 939-949), Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων, 15-18 Μαρτίου 2007.
Χαλκιά, Κ. (1995). Οι Έλληνες εκπαιδευτικοί της α/θμιας και της β/θμιας εκπαίδευσης απέναντι στο μάθημα της φυσικής. Διερεύνηση των απόψεων και των στάσεων των ελλήνων εκπ/κων που διδάσκουν φυσική, μελέτη των συνεπειών τους στην εκπαιδευτική διαδικασία και διατύπωση σχετικών προτάσεων [Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (ΕΚΠΑ), Τμήμα Παιδαγωγικό Δημοτικής Εκπαίδευσης]. https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/5342
Apa dictionary of psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://dictionary.apa.org/
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
Barth-Cohen, L. A., & Wittmann, M. C. (2017). Aligning coordination class theory with a new context: Applying a theory of individual learning to group learning. Science Education, 101(2), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21264
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Berland, L. K., & Russ, R. S. (2017). Conceptual change through argumentation. In T. G. Amin & O. Levrini (Eds.), Converging Perspectives on Conceptual Change (1st ed., pp. 180–189). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315467139-22
Buteler, L., & Coleoni, E. (2016). Solving problems to learn concepts, how does it happen? A case for buoyancy. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020144. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020144
Boğar, Y. (2019). Synthesis study on argumentation in science education. International Education Studies, 12(9), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p1
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.0001
Carey, S. (2011). Précis of The Origin of Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000919
Calais, G. D. (2008). Microgenetic analysis of learning: Measuring change as it occurs. In National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal (Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 1-7). http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Calais,%20Gerald%20J%20Microgenetic%20Analysis%20of%20Learning.pdf
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.695709
Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns in peer collaboration that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 263–274). American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_21
Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, A. M. O’Donnell, & C. K. Chan (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314-332). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument: THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM AS A SITE OF EPISTEMIC TALK. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2– 3), 105–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201002
diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 121-154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. ISBN􀀀13: 978􀀀1607526735
diSessa, A. A., Sherin, B., & Levin, M. (2016). Knowledge analysis: An introduction. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N.J.S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences, (pp. 30-71). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757360
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176933
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A project sepia evaluation. For full text: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED453050
Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (Vol. 35, pp. 47–69). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043–1055. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14030
Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1202_4
Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Close, K., & Evans, M. (2018). Key challenges and future directions for educational research on scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21412
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive science quarterly, 2(1),5-62. ISSN 1466􀀀6553.
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2003). Investigating Greek students’ ideas about forces and motion. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 375-392. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025457116654
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000).?Doing the lesson? Or ?doing science?: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757– 792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
Levrini, O., & diSessa, A. A. (2008). How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: Proper time as a coordination class. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010107
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Millar, R., Osborne, J., & Nott, M. (1998). Science education for the future. School Science Review, 80(291), 19-24. ISSN 0036􀀀6811.
Ministry of Education, P. R. China. (2017). Physics curriculum standards for senior high
school. People’s Education Press. http://en.moe.gov.cn/
Next generation science standards: For states, by states. (2013). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Osborne, J., Borko, H., Busch, K. C., Fishman, E., Million, E., & Tseng, A. (2016, April 8-12). Developing and using an instrument to assess the dialectical potential of whole-class discussions in teaching science. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Washington, DC. ISSN 0163-9676
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & 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
Osborne, J. F., Borko, H., Fishman, E., Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Berson, E., Busch, K. C., Reigh, E., & Tseng, A. (2019). Impacts of a practice-based professional development program on elementary teachers’ facilitation of and student engagement with scientific argumentation. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1067–1112. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218812059
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21073
Papakonstantinou, M., & Skoumios, M. (2021). Analysis of greekmiddle-school science textbooks about forces and motion from the perspective of three-dimensional learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(12), em2039. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11309
Parnafes, O., & diSessa, A. A. (2013). Microgenetic learning analysis: A methodology for studying knowledge in transition. Human Development, 56(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1159/000342945
Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20264
Ruthven, K., Mercer, N., Taber, K. S., Guardia, P., Hofmann, R., Ilie, S., … Riga, F. (2016). A research-informed dialogic-teaching approach to early secondary school mathematics and science: The pedagogical design and field trial of the episteme intervention. Research Papers in Education, 32(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2015.1129642
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 255-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.12.002
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18863
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Wang, J. (2020). Scrutinising the positions of students and teacher engaged in argumentation in a high school physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1700315
Zaitchik, D., Solomon, G. E. A., Tardiff, N., & Bascandziev, I. (2016). Conceptual change. In D. Barner & A. S. Baron (Eds.), Core Knowledge and Conceptual Change (pp. 73–88). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190467630.003.0005
Zhang, J., & Browne, W. J. (2023). Exploring Chinese high school students’ performance and perceptions of scientific argumentation by understanding it as a three-component progression of competencies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 847–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21819