Argumentation in Whole-Class Teaching and Science Learning
Peers’ discussion of contradictory ideas has been proven to promote students’ learning. Some empirical evidence suggests that whole-class argumentation has similar benefits, but there is no clarity yet on whether discussion accounts for this effect. This study aimed at testing the effects of different aspects of whole-class argumentation on science learning. A non-probabilistic sample of 220 students (aged 10 to 11 years) from 18 public schools in Santiago, Chile, participated in the study. Eleven teachers delivered lessons according to a teaching programme especially developed to foster argumentation (intervention group) and 7 teachers delivered lessons in their usual way (control group). Students were assessed individually using pre- and post-measures of learning, argumentative skills and attitudes toward science. The two formers were tests and the latter was a questionnaire. Lessons were videotaped. Factorial analysis and linear regression were conducted. Results showed that 2 factors predict a portion of the variance on learning: one factor composed of justificatory utterances and the other of students’ counter-arguments. These results suggest that contradiction among peers is not the only aspect of classroom argumentation that prompts learning.
Texto completo:PDF (English)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Psykhe es editada por la Escuela de Psicología de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Publica trabajos originales, preferentemente empíricos, en las diferentes áreas de la psicología científica y profesional.
Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile / Teléfono: +56(2) 23544844 / Correo-e: email@example.com