Argumentation: an essential component of a process of chemical modelling

1

• Argumentation an essential component of a
  process of chemical modelling

Cristian Merino et al. LIEC (Llenguatge i
Ensenyament de les Ciencies, UAB)
2
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.
3
Toulmin The uses of argumentation
Van Dijk argumentative macro and microstructure
Adam uses of argumentation (persuasion)
Sarda and Sanmartiargumentation, a new pattern
in the classroom
Argumentation as a tool for modelling (ACE, UAB)
4
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.
5
Language and modelling
TM
World
Languages
Establishing new relations, new entities
6
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
7
The conclusions allow us to compare the
argumentations elaborated in each course (the
traditional chemical course and the
modelling-approach course).
8
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
9
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
10
It was designed as proposed Sarda and Sanmarti
11
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. 
12
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. 
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
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.
17
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)
18
Thus, new technologies were used to facilitate
learning processes.
19
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.