Argumentação e a construção de contra-argumentos em um debate sobre uma questão sociocientífica em uma sala de aula dos anos finais do ensino fundamental

• Ano de defesa: 2020
• Autor(a) principal: Rubens Silveira Garcias
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; Brasil; FAE - FACULDADE DE EDUCAÇÃO; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação - Conhecimento e Inclusão Social; UFMG
• Palavras-chave em Português: Argumentação; Contra-argumentos; Uso de Evidência; Processos Discursivos; Educação em Ciências; Questões Sociocientíficas; Ciências (Ensino fundamental) > Estudo e ensino; Ciências (Ensino fundamental) > Métodos de ensino; Ciências (Ensino fundamental) > Lógica
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/37897

The goal of this research is to characterize argumentative situations, in particular, the construction of counter-arguments and the use of evidence in science lessons in the final years of elementary school in the context of a debate on a sociocientific issue. In order to develop this research, we seek to rely on theoretical and methodological assumptions of Educational and Interactional Ethnography. In addition to participant observation conducted throughout the school year, we planned, in collaboration with the Science teacher, a sequence of lessons designed to encourage students to interpret and analyze texts with information and data related to the sociocientific issue of eucalyptus monoculture. As part of the sequence, the students evaluated evidences favorable and contrary to the monoculture of eucalyptus and held a role-played debate with the attribution of different positions (pro/contra), in which the students presented arguments and counter-arguments, according to their roles. This research is part of a broader research project that investigates science learning and teaching in the final years of elementary school. The entire sequence was recorded on video and audio, also composing a database for this project. Initially, macroscopic analyzes were carried out to map the main events of a sequence of activities lasting two classes, totaling 3 hours. The second class, which involved a debate on eucalyptus planting, was selected for deeper analysis. Still through macroscopic analysis, it was possible to identify a debate with greater potential to answer our research questions. Two other debates were later identified as more significant moments in the activity. The main events, called telling cases, were fully transcribed for the analysis of discursive interactions, in order to examine how arguments and counter-arguments arose and were built within and between groups of students. Our analysis turned to the nature and content of the students’ claims and to the discursive, interactional and temporal aspects, particularly those related to the development of counter-arguments by students. The panoramic analysis of our results pointed out that the students effectively engaged in the debate activity, in a wide set of ways. We observed how a sociocientific issue in the context of a debate with the attribution of positions (pro/contra) contributes to encourage students to participate in a more meaningful way. From the telling cases word-by-word analysis, we show how students can develop their argumentative processes throughout the debate in various ways, using elements of different natures (scientific/technological knowledge, everyday knowledge, common sense, social and environmental consideration, strategic and epistemological consideration) in their discourses. Although we observed the prevalence of oppositions throughout the debate (due to the very instructional nature of the activity: based on persuasion with assigned positions), we observed a relatively rare occurrence of consistent critical evaluation and integration between the students' discourses. In several events we could see an accumulation of arguments in favor of or against the cultivation of eucalyptus, but there was not much reference to each other's statements. As noted, students tend not to question the evidence presented by opponents (absence of epistemological considerations). These results led us to try to understand better what kind of social practices students engaged in participating in the debate, relating them to the view of science that was "talk into being" in the class throughout the activity. However, it is important to note that the results found in this and other studies indicate that discussions in a role-played debate with assigned positions do not lead to the evaluation and weighting of conflicting evidence, arguments and values, which would be relevant for a reflection on the nature of science and science teaching itself. Finally, we point out the need for new studies that systematically examine how the processes of evaluating arguments and constructing counter-arguments unfold in classroom discussions centered on the student, when they are asked to defend randomly assigned positions (pro/contra). This study seeks to contribute to discussions on sociocientific argumentation, elaboration of counter-arguments and the process of building a favorable culture to argumentation in science classes.