Quando as crianças argumentam: a construção discursiva do uso de evidências em aulas de ciências em uma turma do 3° ano do Ensino Fundamental

• Ano de defesa: 2016
• Autor(a) principal: Luiz Gustavo Franco Silveira
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; UFMG
• Palavras-chave em Português: Educação em Ciências; Anos Iniciais do Ensino Fundamental; Uso de Evidências; Etnografia em Educação; Argumentação; Raciocínio; Educação; Ensino fundamental; Ciencia Estudo e ensino; Etnologia; Estudos em grupo
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/BUBD-ACFF32

The goal of this study is to analyze the discursive construction of the use of evidence in a 3rd grade class, during the argumentation in sciences lessons. In this study, we present a literature review that emphasize the importance of introducing practices such as the use of evidence in science education for children, an uncommon activity in the Brazilian educational settings. Studies indicated that children in early elementary school have specificities, which represent a promising field of research. Another relevant aspect is the demand in the area of science education for studies that foreground participants perspectives and focus on the analysis of argumentation as a process in the classroom. Considering this scenario, we developed a study that is part of a larger research project that followed the same group over the first three years of elementary school. The analyses presented here refer to the science lessons of the first semester of 2014, when the students were in 3rd grade. During this period, the group studied the biological concept of Adaptation, through the subject "Behavior of Parental Care". The science lessons were conducted by the reference teacher with support of the researchers team, and planned based on inquiry perspective. We developed the research seeking to appropriate elements of Ethnography in Education, and to use of Microethnographic Discourse Analysis tools. This theoretical and methodological framework helped us to emphasize participants perspectives, and supported our understanding of the classroom as a culture. The construction of data and the analysis were guided by iterative-responsive process. We conducted participant observation, took field notes and video recorded classroom interactions. Initially, we made a macroscopic data analysis, building tables of the lessons and events maps. These representations provided us with an overview of the groups history. Based on this data, we selected events considered telling cases. Then we performed a microscopic analysis of these events through the transcript of face to face interactions using message units (i.e., based on contextual cues). We analyzed the transcripts to identify and characterize how the group argued. This analysis were developed based on Microethnography, assumptions of Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation and discussion about use of evidence in educational research literature. Inspired in Bloome et al. (2003), we conducted analysis that were Situated over Time and Space to build view of the data across the discussion of three axes that reflects the process of learning to use evidence and to argue: i) What was discussed at these events and how participants engaged in these discussions; ii) How participants used evidence during the events and built notions related to the use of evidence; and iii) How some terms were used during the argumentation and related the notions of the use of evidence in the group. Regarding the first axis, our results indicate that the discussions were sometimes more related to demand/presentation of point of views, with a discourse centered in the presentation of arguments; and sometimes the discussions were more related to metacognitive questions, with a speech towards discussions about the use of evidence. Regarding the second axis, we emphasize that the use of evidence has developed over the time, when the group: i) made discussions related to the need for something to be observed to construct an answer; ii) created situations that could generate data to construct an answer; iii) engaged in the invocation and discussion of collective memories; and iv) presented and evaluated evidence explicitly. The evidence evaluation process took place in two different ways in the group: one related to how to interpret the evidence and the other related to the analysis of the validity of the evidence. Relative to the third axis, we indicated that certain terms were emphasized by the teacher or by the students when the group discussed the use of evidence. Terms like to see, to know, to find, to make sure, to look, to observe were associated with a process of change in the rationale for constructing answers in the group. The term cue was used to make references to the data used to support answers. Later, participants used the term evidence with same sense. Our study indicates that, in this classroom, there was a diversity of processes involved in constructing practices of use of evidence over time. Finally, we point out the importance of studies that emphasizes the investigation of how children construct cultural practices related to science in classrooms.