Palabras clave
escritura
razonamiento causal
argumentación causal
primary education
writing
causal reasoning
causal argumentation
Cómo citar
Resumen
Este artículo propone identificar cuáles son los cambios que se generan en los niveles de razonamiento causal y en la argumentación causal de niños de 8 a 10 años cuando escriben textos sobre el fenómeno físico de rebotar. Específicamente, se tienen como objetivos analizar la influencia de dos contextos de escritura (colaborativo e individual) sobre los niveles de razonamiento causal en la población analizada y contrastar los componentes argumentativos cuando justifican la ocurrencia de dicho fenómeno en los dos espacios. Se tuvo como hipótesis que la interacción en la situación de escritura mejoraría significativamente la calidad de los textos. Se trabajó con una muestra de cuarenta y ocho estudiantes de dos escuelas públicas de Cali (Colombia). Participaron en este estudio 19 niños y 29 niñas (M= 9.4; SD= 0.74). El diseño experimental tuvo dos tipos de escritura: colaborativa e individual. En la primera condición, se conformaron triadas para la escritura de los textos; en la segunda condición, se escribieron estos de forma singular. Los sujetos experimentales fueron seleccionados y distribuidos al azar en las dos condiciones. Los resultados dan evidencia para confirmar la hipótesis del estudio. Se obtuvo un mayor número de afirmaciones causales en el contexto colaborativo y con un nivel de interacción mayor entre ellas, que las descritas en el individual. Análisis de varianza (Anova) dan cuenta de diferencias significativas en el número de variables y en el número de interacciones propuestas. En el discurso argumentativo se encontraron diferencias significativas para las afirmaciones causales, pero no para los otros componentes argumentativos. Los resultados son un indicador de que se alcanzan niveles de razonamiento más complejos escribiendo colaborativamente textos sobre fenómenos físicos que aquellos que se logran individualmente. Sin embargo, la argumentación causal no se complejiza en su estructura, más allá de aumentar el número de afirmaciones contenidas en los puntos de vista.Citas
Atance, Cristina, Metcalf, Jennifer, Martin-Ordas, Gema y Walker, Cheryl. (2014). Young children’s causal explanations are biased by post-action associative information. Developmental psychology, 50(12), 2675.
Baldy, Elise. (2007). A new educational perspective for teaching gravity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1767-1788.
Berland, Leema y Lee, Victor. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882.
Buty, Christian y Plantin, Christian. (2008). Argumenter en classe de sciences. Du débat à l’apprentissage. Paris, France: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
Cavagnetto, Andy, Hand, Brian y Norton‐Meier, Lori. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449.
Ceberio, Mikel, Almudí, José Manuel y Zubimendi, José Luis. (2014). Análisis de los argumentos elaborados por estudiantes de cursos introductorios de Física universitaria ante situaciones problemáticas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32, 71-88.
Charaudeau, Patrick. (2009). Identités Sociales et Discursives du Sujet Parlant. Paris: L'Harmattan.
Chin, Christine y Osborne, Jonathan. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.
Colegio Colombiano de Psicólogos, COLPSIC. (2009). Deontología y bioética del ejercicio de la psicología en Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Javegraf. Recuperado de http://www.infopsicologica.com/documentos/2009/Deontologia_libro.pdf
Coolican, Hugh (2005). Métodos de investigación y estadística en psicología. Bogotá, Colombia: Editorial El Manual Moderno.
Dawson, Vaille y Venville, Grady Jane. (2009). High-school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445.
Dobao, Ana Fernandez. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, 40–58.
Dobao, Ana Fernández y Blum, Avram. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378.
Elola, Idoia y Oskoz, Ana. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51–71.
Erduran, Sibel, y Jiménez-Aleixandre, María Pilar. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gadgil, Soniya, Nokes-Malach, Timothy y Chi, Michelene. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47-61.
Garcia‐Mila, Merce, Gilabert, Sandra, Erduran, Sibel y Felton, Michael. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.
Gosser Jr, David, Kampmeier, Jack y Varma-Nelson, Pratibha. (2010). Peer-led team learning: 2008 James Flack Norris award address. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(4), 374-380.
Gutiérrez, Mario Fernando y Correa, Miralba. (2009). Operaciones discursivas y contextos argumentativos: Sobre la comprensión del fenómeno físico de rebotar. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 12(2), 85-95.
Hardy, Ilonca, Kloetzer, Birgit, Moeller, Kornelia, y Sodian, Beate. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: Elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 197-221.
Heng, Lee, Surif, Johari, y Seng, Cher. (2014). Individual versus group argumentation: Student's performance in a Malaysian context. International Education Studies, 7(7), 109-124.
Heng, Lee, Surif, Johari, y Seng, Cher. (2015). Malaysian students' scientific argumentation: do groups perform better than individuals? International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 505-528.
Järvelä, Sanna, Järvenoja, Hanna y Veermans, Marjaana. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 122-135.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, Maria Pilar. (2007). Designing Argumentation Learning Environments. En Sibel Erduran y María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.). Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom based research (pp. 91-116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kim, Young‐Suk. (2015). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86(1), 128-144.
Kulatunga, Ushiri, Moog, Richard y Lewis, Jennifer. (2013). Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer‐led sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207-1231.
Kuhn, Deanna. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, Deanna, Iordanou, Kalypso, Pease, Maria y Wirkala, Clarice. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?. Cognitive Development 23, 435–451.
Kuhn, Deanna y Crowell, Amanda. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science 22(4), 545-552.
Kuhn, Deanna, Zillmer, Nicole, Crowell, Amanda y Zavala, Julia. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456-496.
Kuhn, Deanna. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46-53.
Felton, Mark, y Kuhn, Deanna. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 135-153.
Leitão, Selma. (2007). Consciência da "estrutura argumentativa" e produção textual. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 23(4), 423-432.
Mascalzoni, Elena, Regolin, Lucia, Vallortigara, Giorgio y Simion, Francesca. (2013). The cradle of causal reasoning: newborns’ preference for physical causality. Developmental Science, 16(3), 327-335.
Maskiewicz, April Cordero y Lineback, Jennifer Evarts. (2013). Misconceptions are “so yesterday!”. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 352-356.
McCormack, Teresa, Bramley, Neil, Frosch, Caren, Patrick, Fiona y Lagnado, David. (2016). Children’s use of interventions to learn causal structure. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 1-22.
McNeill, Katherine y Martin, Dean. (2011). Claims, evidence, and reasoning: Demystifying data during a unit on simple machines. Science and Children, April/May. Recuperado de http://searkscience.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/70117336/2-Claimsevidence.pdf
McNeill, Katherine y Pimentel, Diane. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.
Mercier, Hugo y Sperber, Dan. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57-74.
Myhill, Debra, y Jones, Susan. (2015). Conceptualizing metalinguistic understanding in writing/Conceptualización de la competencia metalingüística en la escritura. Cultura y Educación, 27(4), 839-867.
Moeschler, Jacques. (2011). Causal, inferential and temporal connectives: Why parce que is the only causal connective in French. Marqueurs discursifs et subjectivité, 97-114.
Narjaikaew, Pattawan. (2013). Alternative conceptions of primary school teachers of science about force and motion. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 88, 250-257.
Neumann, Heike y McDonough, Kim. (2015). Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 27, 84–104.
Niaz, Mansoor. (2010). Science curriculum and teacher education: The role of presuppositions, contradictions, controversies and speculations vs Kuhn's ‘normal science’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 891-899.
Noroozi, Omid, Biemans, Harm, Busstra, Maria, Mulder, Martin y Chizari, Mohammad. (2011) Differences in learning processes between successful and less successful students in computer-supported collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 309–318
Nussbaum, Michael y Sinatra, Gale. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395.
Özdem, Yasemin, Çavaş, Pinar, Çavaş, Bülent, Çakıroğlu, Jale y Ertepınar, Hamide. (2010). An investigation of elementary students scientific literacy levels. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9(1), 6-19.
Pereira, Zulay. (2011). Los diseños de método mixto en la investigación en educación: Una experiencia concreta. Revista Electrónica Educare, 15(1), 15-29.
Plantin, Christian. (2014a). Lengua, argumentación y aprendizajes escolares. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: Revista de la Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología, 36, 95-114.
Plantin, Christian. (2014b). Dictionnaire de l'argumentation : Une introduction notionnelle aux études d'argumentation. Lyon, France : ENS Editions.
Pontecorvo, Clotilde. (1993). Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 y 4), 189-196.
Sadler, Troy y Donnelly, Lisa. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
Sawmiller, Alison. (2010). Classroom blogging: What is the role in science learning?. The Clearing House, 83(2), 44-48.
Shaw, Kenna, Van Horne, Katie, Zhang, Hubert y Boughman, Joann. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics, 178(3), 1157-1168.
Shehadeh, Ali. (2012). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286-305.
Storch, Neomy. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14, 153–173
Storch, Neomy. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288.
Swain, Merrill. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44-63.
Toulmin, Stephen. (1993). Les usages de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Turiman, Punia, Omar, Jizah, Mohd Daud, Adzliana, y Osman, Kamisah. (2012). Fostering the 21st century skills through scientific literacy and science process skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 110-116. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.253
Vygotsky, Liev Semionovich. (1979). El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores. Buenos Aires: Grijalbo.
Waismeyer, Anna, Meltzoff, Andrew y Gopnik, Alison. (2015). Causal learning from probabilistic events in 24‐month‐olds: an action measure. Developmental science, 18(1), 175-182.
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Christopher y Macagno, Fabrizio. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weisser, Marc. (2004). Compétences argumentatives des enfants d’âge scolaire: Les profils interactionnels au cours préparatoire et au cours moyen. Revue des Sciences de l’Education, 30(2), 435-455.
Wigglesworth, Gillian y Storch, Neomy. (2009). Pairs versus individual writing: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.