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 purpose of this article is to explore the way in which the argumentative discourse promotes the comprehension that children of ages 8 to 10 have about variables inherent to the physical phenomenon of bouncing. From a social perspective, it is recognized that peer interaction allows boys and girls to contrast other people’s beliefs with their own ideas and reach agreements that contain validity clauses for all the participants in the situation. Discursive analysis shows how argumentative discourse generates knowledge that rather than being shared, recognizes the convergence of different styles of thought and builds new ways for explaining the physical phenomena.
References
Anderson, R., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M. & Yi, H. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46.
Baldy, E. (2007). A new educational perspective for teaching gravity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1767-1788.
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.
Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D. & deLeeuw (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
diSessa, A.A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition And Instruction, 10, 105-225.
diSessa, A., Gillespiea, N., & Esterlyb, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.
Dixon, A. y Bangert, A. (2002). The prehistory of discovery: Precursors of representational change in solving gear system problems. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 918-933.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Ducrot, O. (2004). Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique En M. Doury & S. Moirand (Comps.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation (pp. 17-34). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Erduran, S., Ardac, D. & Yakmaci-guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
Felton, M. & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153.
Grize, J.B. (2004). Le point de vue de la logique naturelle: Démontrer, prouver, argumenter. En M. Doury & S. Moirand (Comps.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation (pp. 35-44). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Gutiérrez, M.F. (2005). Razonamiento físico en preescolares: Un análisis microgenético. Revista Psykhe, 14(2), 109-117.
Hofer, B. & 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.
Leitao, S. (1996). Perspectivas no estudo da argumentação quotidiana. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 12(1), 11-21.
Leitao, S. (2000). A produção de contra-argumentos na escritura infantil. Psicologia: Reflexão e critica 13(3), 351-361.
Mazens, K. & Lautrey, J. (2003). Conceptual change in physics: Children’s naive representations of sound. Cognitive Development, 18, 159-176.
Mildenhall, P. & Williams, J. (2001). Instability in students’ use of intuitive and Newtonian models to predict motion: The critical effect of the parameters involved. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 643-660.
Pillow, B., Hill, V., Boyce, A., y Stein, C. (2000). Understanding inference as a source of knowledge: Children’s ability to evaluate the certainty of deduction, perception, and guessing. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 169-179.
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. (1993). Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition And Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 189-196.
Pontecorvo, C., & Giradet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition And Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 365-395.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J., Chi, M. & Resnick, L. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition And Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.
Resnick, L., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C., Haley, S. & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition And Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 347-364.
Roth, W., Lucas, K. & McRobbie, C. (2001). Students’ talk about rotational motion within and across contexts, and implications for future learning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 151- 179.
Slotta, J.D., Chi, M.T. & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students’ misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition And Instruction, 13(3), 373-400.
Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C. & Hennessey, G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (2002). Argumentación. En T. Van Dijk (Comp.), El Discurso Como Estructura y Proceso, Volumen 1 (pp. 305-333). Barcelona, España: Gedisa S.A. (Orig. 1997).
Van Eemeren, F. & Houtlosser, P. (2004). Une vue synoptique del’approche pragma-dialectique. En M. Doury & S. Moirand (Comps.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation (pp. 103-124). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Vignaux, G. (2004). Une approche cognitive de l’argumentation. En M. Doury & S. Moirand (Comps.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation (pp. 103-124). Paris : Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Vosniadou, S. (2002). Propiedades universales y culturo-específicas de los modelos mentales de los niños acerca de la tierra. En: A. Hirschfeld, & S. Gelman (Comps), Cartografía de la Mente (pp. 221- 243). Barcelona: Gedisa, S.A.
Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., & Ikospentaki, K. (2004). Modes of knowing and ways of reasoning in elementary astronomy. Cognitive Development, 19(2), 203–222.
Vries, E., Lund, K. & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.
