Argumentation: an essential component of a process of chemical modelling

Cristian Merino et al.LIEC (Llenguatge i Ensenyament de les Ciencies, UAB)

This document shows an example of argumentation as an essential

component of a chemical modelling process

The question is how it could be guided and fostered, comparing two

initial training courses in chemistry.

The particularity of one of these courses is that it has been designed under a modelling

approach.

Toulmin: The uses of argumentation

Van Dijk: argumentative macro and microstructure

Sarda and Sanmarti:argumentation, a new pattern in the classroomArgumentation as a tool for modelling (ACE, UAB)

Adam: uses of argumentation (persuasion)

Scientists use arguments to develop the hypotheses that

relate Theoretical Models with the data or the initial

departure points.

Chemistry teaching based on models or designed according to

a modelling process uses argumentation as an essential

instrument for the simultaneous theoretical and practical construction of meaning.

Language and modelling

Establishing new relations, new entities

Languages

TM

World

There are proposals to implement argumentation in class (Sardà & Sanmartí, 2000), using a patron to guide the school activity We describe the specific characteristics of two chemistry courses on different contexts students-teacher: interactions between students with the ‘guide’ are analysed.

We can also identify differences in the design and the curriculum planning of each course. This fact generates different degrees of argumentation

The conclusions allow us to compare the argumentations

elaborated in each course (the traditional chemical course and the

modelling-approach course).

Modelling is conceived as a process that takes place when students learn “to make sense” of the facts that they observe

(Group A)

Experimentation, modelling and regulating discussion intertwine to promote a

rational reconstruction of phenomena.

Students achieve constructing relations and more and more complex explanations

On the other hand, the group B, first learned theoretical concepts

and then practised them

(a traditional approach)

 The analysed documents correspond to 6 students of group A and 6 of

group B.

We set up an electronic template (ARGU- Microsoft Excel), designed to ‘scaffold’ the processes of

argumentation construction (Merino et al., 2006) in both cases

It was designed as proposed Sarda and Sanmarti

The activity consisted in reading a text that introduced an

experimental question that students

had to solve. Once they finished the experiment, they had to explain the result, taking into account all errors, anomalies and doubts that could appear or that could be

formulated by an external observer who does not know chemistry.

 

The experimental activity consisted in ‘burning iron’. In this

experience, apparently, ‘something was lost’, but the iron mass

increased.

Students of both courses elaborated their texts according to the

guidelines provided. Then, they compared, discussed and began a process of exchange of ideas that allowed them to evaluate their

productions using the template with more independence.

 

The application of the template, with the purpose of impelling argumentation to

give meaning to chemistry practices, has allowed us to verify its usefulness on

the following aspects:

*Acquisition of the argumentation pattern, using specific connectors (due

to, nevertheless, if… then…). *Acquisition of reasoning based on

hypotheses that are confirmed or not….*…. according to evidences from

reflection on the obtained product. This ‘final explanation’ can be reviewed if it

is not satisfactory.

The main differences between groups were dues to different

understandings of arguments which can be considered convincing.

For example, talking about reactions the burning of iron is explained by the formula (Fe2O3) and the argumentation is poor

(Group B).

In other cases, students are led to phenomenological interpretations with chemical criteria and more rich arguments but there also

errors from common sense. (Group A)

Thus, new technologies were used to facilitate learning processes.

JUSTI, R. & GILBERT, J. (2002). “Models and modelling in Chemical Education”, In Gilbert et al. (eds.) Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice, Chapter 3, 47-68, Kluwer: Dordrecht.GROSS, A. (1990). The Rhetoric of Science, Harvard University Pres: USA.IZQUIERDO, M., SANMARTI, N., & ESPINET, M. (1999). Fundamentación y diseño de las prácticas escolares de

ciencias experimentales. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17(1), 45-59.MÉHEUT, M. (2004). Designing and validating two

teaching-learning sequences about particle models. IJSE. 26(5), 605-618.MERINO, C. IZQUIERDO, M & ARELLANO, J (2006). Dynamic guide to attend in the construction of a text and to argue scientific ideas. In Méndez, R., Solano, A., Mesa, A & Mesa, J (Eds.), Current Developments in

Technology-Assisted Education. Vol. I. (pp. 145-149) Formatex: Badajoz.SARDÁ, A & SANMARTÍ, N. (2000). Enseñar a argumentar científicamente: un reto de la clase de ciencias. Enseñanza de las Ciencias 18(3), 405-422. SIEGEL, H. (1995).Why should educators care about argumentation. Informal Logic 17(2), 159-176.