PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Acta Colombiana de Psicología complies with international intellectual property and copyright laws, and particularly with Article No. 58 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, Law No. 23 of 1982, and the Agreement No. 172 of September 30, 2010 (Universidad Católica de Colombia Intellectual Property Regulation).
Authors retain their copyright and grant to the Acta Colombiana de Psicología the right of first publication, with the work registered under Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use the published material, provided they credit the authorship of the work and the first publication in this Journal.
Abstract
The objective of this research was to make inquiries about the changes that three different contexts generate in the argumentative and epistemological operations used by children aged between 8 and 10 years. Thirty-six fifth grade students from two public schools in Cali, Colombia, took part in the study. The experimental design involved three contexts based on Klahr’s theory (2000) about scientific reasoning: argumentation, prediction and experimentation. The students’ argumentative performance in the three contexts was characterized by the recurrent use of operations such as affirmation and justification and by the relatively low occurrence of opposition and counter-opposition. In relation to the epistemic aspect, the students successively increased the empirical evaluations in the prediction and experimentation context, favoring the information that was obtained in the resolution of the situation in order to solve the conflicts present in the discourse. It was found that the students in the argumentative context used several variables to explain the bouncing phenomenon where construction material and presence of gas inside the objects were the most common ones. In the experimentation context there was an increase in the explanations of the phenomenon based on two simultaneous variables being weight and presence of gas, those of bigger proportions, as well as construction material and shape.
References
Adam, J.M. (1990). Eléments de linguistique textuelle. Théorie et pratique de l’analyse textuelle. Mardaga.
Anderson, R. et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition And Instruction, 19(1), 1-46.
Anscombre, J.C. (1995). De l’argumentation dans la langue à la théorie des topoï. En: J.C. Anscombre (Comp.), Théorie des topoï. Paris : Editions KIMÉ.
Bloom, J. (2001). Discourse, cognition, and chaotic systems: An examination of students’ argument about density. The Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 10(4), 447 – 492.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dalla, M.L., y Toraldo, G. (2001). Confines: Introducción a la Filosofía de la Ciencia. Barcelona, España: Editorial Crítica.
Ducrot, O. (1982). La notion du sujet parlant. En Cahier du groupe de recherche sur la philosophie (Comp.), Recherches sur la philosophie et le langage. Université de Grenoble, 65-93.
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris : Les Editions de Minuit.
Ducrot, O. (2004). Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique. En M. Doury & S. Moirand (Comps.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation. (1734-124). Paris : Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Edwards, D. (1993). But what do children really think?: Discourse analysis and conceptual content in children’s talk. Cognition And Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 207-225.
Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development 19, 35–52.
Felton, M. K., y Kuhn, D. (2002). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 23(2/3), 135–154.
Finkelstein, N. (2005). Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1187-1209.
Forman, E. A., & Kraker, M. J. (1985). The social origins of logic: The contributions of Piaget and Vygotsky. In M. W. Berkowitz (Ed.), Peer Conflict and Psychological Growth (Chap. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M., y Brown, C. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.
Gilbert, J. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.
Gutiérrez, M.F. & Correa, M. (2008). Argumentación y concepciones implícitas sobre física: un análisis pragmadialéctico. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 11(1), 55-63.
Hofer, B., y Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Klahr, D. (2000). Scientific discovery as problem solving. En: D. Klahr (Ed.), The Cognition and Development of Discovery Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Leitao, S. (1996). Perspectivas no estudo da argumentação quotidiana. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 12(1), 011-021.
Leitao, S. (2000). A produção de contra-argumentos na escritura infantil. Psicologia: Reflexão e critica, 13(3), 351-361.
Mounoud, P. (2000). Le développement cognitif selon Piaget. Structures et point de vue. En: O. Houdé, y C. Meljac (Comps). L’Esprit Piagétien (191-211). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Nølke, H. (2006). Pour une théorie linguistique de la polyphonie: problèmes, avantages, perspectives. Perrin (Ed.) : Le sens et ses voix. Dialogisme et polyphonie en langue et en discours. Recherches linguistiques 28. Metz: Université Paul Verlaine, pp. 243-269.
Nussbaum, M., y Sinatra, G. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.
Parchmann, I. (2006). “Chemie im kontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041–1062.
Pilot, A. y Bulte, A. (2006a). Why do you “Need to Know”?. Context-based education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 953-956.
Pilot, A. y Bulte, A. (2006b). The use of “contexts” as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1087-1112.
Pine, K., y Messer, D. (2000). The effect of explaining another’s actions on children’s implicit theories of balance. Cognition And Instruction, 18(1), 35-51.
Ploetzner, R., y VanLehn, K. (1997). The acquisition of qualitative physics knowledge during textbook-based physics training. Cognition And Instruction, 15(2), 169-205.
Pontecorvo, C., y Giradet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition And Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 365-395.
Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., y Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right ... If they argue together!. Cognition And Instruction, 18(4), 461-494.
Stein, N. y Albro, E. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 113–133.
Toulmin, Stephen (1993). Les usages de l’argumentation. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France. (Travail original publié en 1958).
van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., y Jacobs, S. (2002). Argumentación. En T. Van Dijk (Comp.), El Discurso como estructura y proceso, Volumen 1 (p. 305 – 333). Barcelona, España: Gedisa S.A. (Orig. 1997).
Villani, A., y Orquiza, L. (1997). Evolución mental de las representaciones mentales sobre colisiones. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 15(1), 91-102.
