Scientific Argumentation In Pre-service Biology Teacher Education
 
More details
Hide details
1
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Agustín Adúriz-Bravo   

Centro de Formación e Investigación en Enseńanza de las Ciencias, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires Planta Baja, Pabellón 2, Ciudad Universitaria, (C1428EHA) Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Telephone: 541145763331 Fax: 541145763351
Publish date: 2005-11-22
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2005;1(1):76–83
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the design of an instructional unit examining scientific argumentation with prospective biology teachers. Linguistics and philosophy of science have turned to argumentation as a relevant skill; its importance in science classes has also been highlighted by scholars. We define school scientific argumentation and analyse its components. We present the unit, directed to pre-service biology teachers, which includes different strategies; among them, we propose guided reading, analogies, debates, and discussion on historical episodes. We describe the activities, examining the nature-of-science topics addressed. The sequence relates to secondary science teaching; this may increase the meaningfulness of the nature of science in teacher education.
 
REFERENCES (15)
1.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2004) The discovery of radium as a 'historical setting' to teach some ideas on the nature of science. In D. Metz (Ed.), 7th International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference Proceedings, CD-ROM, pp. 12-19. Winnipeg: University of Winnipeg.
 
2.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. and Izquierdo, M. (2001) Structuring ideas from the philosophy of science for physics teacher education. In R. Pintó and S. Surińach (Eds.), International Conference Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000. Selected contributions, pp. 363-366. Paris: Elsevier.
 
3.
Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
 
4.
Duschl, R. (1990) Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
 
5.
Duschl, R. and Osborne, J. (2002) Supporting and prommoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
 
6.
Giere, R. (1988) Explaining science. A cognitive approach. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gross, A. (1990) The rhetoric of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 
7.
Izquierdo, M. and Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2003) Epistemological foundations of school science. Science & Education, 12(1), 27-43.
 
8.
Jiménez Aleixandre, M.P. (Ed.) (2003) Enseńar ciencias. Barcelona: Graó.
 
9.
Lemke, J. (1990) Talking science. Language, learning and values. London: Ablex/JAI Publishing. Matthews, M. (1994) Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
 
10.
McComas, W. (Ed.) (1998) The nature of science in science education. Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
 
11.
Meinardi, E. and Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2002) Encuesta sobre la vigencia del pensamiento vitalista en los profesores de ciencias naturales. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. Versión digital. On-line: http://www.campus-oei.org/revi....
 
12.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I. and McGillicuddy, K. (1996) Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
 
13.
Osborne, J.F. (2001) Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1(3), 271-290.
 
14.
Sanmartí, N. (Ed.) (2003) Aprendre cičncies tot aprenent a escriure cičncia. Barcelona: Edicions 62. Sutton, C. (1992) Words, science and learning. London: Open University Press.
 
15.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215