Socioscientific argumentarion in the context of biodiversity-related issues: application of Toulmin?s argument pattern for teaching to justify claims.

BERMUDEZ, GONZALO M.A.; MARÍA EMILIA OTTOGALLI; GARCÍA, L.P.; ANA LÍA DE LONGHI

Bologna

Conferencia; 13th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Bolonia (Italia); 2020

The evaluation of knowledge through the use of scientific evidence (argumentation) is one of the three scientific practices, together with inquiry and the construction of explanations and models (Crujeiras Pérez & Jiménez Aleixandre, 2015). Arguments concerning the appropriateness of experimental design, the interpretation of evidence, and the validity of knowledge claims are central to the everyday discourse of scientists (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). Over the past few decades numerous studies have focussed on the analysis of argumentation, which have highlighted the importance of discourse in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and students? conceptual understanding (Erduran et al., 2004). In most definitions, argumentation is treated as a social activity, which is rationally guided, and primarily comprised of utterances (or speech acts). From a sociocultural perspective discourse and argumentation occupy a central role in science and in science education. However, classroom discourse is largely dominated by didactic monologues from a teacher, with little opportunity for students to engage in dialogical argumentation (Duschl & Osborne, 2002). Science education scholars of the argumentation strand have typically worked on the basis of a conceptual distinction between argumentation as a process and arguments as the products that can be identified from the process. Argument sequences consist of the arguers? talk turns that are represented in transcriptions of the occurred dialogic argumentation. Argument cores typically involve at least a conclusion or claim and premises, with these elements being extrapolated from the argumentation sequence in which they occurred (Nielsen, 2013). Argument cores are considered to be, for instance, Toulmin?s Argument Pattern (TAP) of what they should consist of (claims, data, warrants, backings, qualifiers and rebuttals). Since argument sequences and argument cores are ontologically distinct from one another, in this presentation, we report on the analysis of argumentation discourse (sequences and cores) occurred during socioscientific biodiversity-based discussions in a high-school Biology classroom.Biological diversity in all its expressions plays an important role in ecosystem functioning, providing essential benefits to people and their well-being. In spite of the utmost importance of biodiversity for sustainable development, it is declining at unprecedented rates. Biodiversity has thus been recognized as an educational priority at all educational levels, and it has been proposed that students should be empowered to act in ways that protect and conserve biodiversity. For this to happen, biodiversity should be considered to be a socioscientific issue due to its intricate links to individual and societal decisions. We utilise this framework as a way of explore teacher?s and students? argumentative discourse in the classroom in order to better understand the argumentative sequences and cores during a context-based teaching and learning unit about the conceptualisation and conservation of biodiversity. METHODSA teaching-learning sequence (TLS) was designed and implemented in the 5th course (32 students aged 16-17) of a state high school in Province, Country. TLS are used as research and innovation tools that are part of the developmental research strand. The design and execution were carried out jointly by the first and third author, with the latest being the regular teacher of the group of students for the subject ?Ecology?. The didactic unit addressed argumentation practices in biodiversity-related socioscientific issues contextualised to current environmental tensions in Province, in 5 out of 9 lessons (80 min each). In the first lesson, alternate frameworks were identified by the teacher by showing slides with images of plants, animals and other biodiversity expressions at different organisational levels. In lesson 2 students read a short document, which was prepared by the teachers, that narrated the evolution of biodiversity conceptualisation and presented its current political and scientific definitions. This reference model of biodiversity was an adaptation of that cited by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, www.ipbes.net), which has further specified the meaning of biodiversity conceived as occurring on three different organizational levels -genetic, species, and ecosystems (Convention on Biological Diversity, https://www.cbd.int/)- to include many other components, such as species evenness, species composition, functional composition, and landscape units. A fieldwork to an urban natural park was developed in lesson 3, where native plants and animals were identified with the help of the teachers and a dichotomous key. In return to the classroom (lesson 4), students discussed about a newspaper article about the conflicts arising on the use of exotic species for reforestation, and worked in groups in order to propose a solution to a biodiversity-related problem-solving task. Afterwards, students re-described their understanding of biodiversity as they had to recognise the species in the slides of the first lesson and explain the components and attributes of biodiversity according to the reference model. Lessons 5 to 9 tackled TAP and presented transposed context-based scientific evidence of biological diversity. This information was used for discussing about the protection of native forests, the threats of invasive alien species, the ecosystem processes involved and the ecosystem services at risk. Finally, students wrote a letter to the governor and the local media to express their concerns about the recent approval of a law and a draft law on native forest protection and countryside forestation. Lessons 5 to 9 are the analytical units of the current presentation. The methodological approach of analysis was qualitative, with a method of discourse analysis, using conversation analysis for oral speech, and focuses on argumentative practices, in terms of discursive elements, TAP contents and activities, the influence of teacher?s scaffolding in order to support participants in solving tasks, and students? application of the biodiversity model to justify their decisions on socio-scientific problem-solving tasks (Bravo Torija & Jiménez Aleixandre, 2014; Ratz & Motokane, 2016).PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONOur investigation is still in progress, and then, our finalised findings will be presented at the conference. First findings are as follows:-Students incorporated the argument pattern of Toulmin in diverse ways and at different pace. As soon as the teacher presented (lesson 5), one student offered a peer an everyday example in which it could be employed: Teacher (T): ?This form of argumentation helps us not to say anything unfounded. Generally, we reach a conclusion without thinking about the backing that supports it (?). Is that understood?? Student (S) 1: ?No.? S2: ?I can come to the conclusion from data, let?s give an example, I say that Melisa stole my cell phone, but I do not have any evidence that she was the thief, that?s what it means.? T: ?Perfect! What it would be an evidence to support that claim or conclusion?? S2: ?For example, that Melisa had done the same thing in the past and someone had seen her.? T: ?The data would be: ?my cell phone was stolen?, the warrants would be (?). Unless?, a rebuttal is an exception in (?).? Other students, when being given data and had to choose the best claim from a multiple-choice list, they widened the backings, arrived to different claims and included rebuttals. -Teacher?s scaffoldings and meta-analysis of TAP were identified: (talking about and evaluating students? rebuttals): T: ?The rebuttal (or exception) is a situation that contradicts the claim, unless that happens, it invalidates what I said as a claim, in terms of the TAP your rebuttal is fine, but in terms of the ecosystem and biodiversity conservation it does not make sense.? Other teacher?s discursive moves focused on students? conceptual understanding of biodiversity and TAP: T: ?How this information could be useful?? Ss: ?To preserve trees, not to cut down forests (...)?. T: ?Ok, then, based on this information, on what environmental issues we may come to a conclusion??, T: ?Paul, can you explain how you did to reach that conclusion??.-Students had difficulty in identifying the warrants in an argument, hence the teacher continuously talked about them: T: ?The warrants have to link one thing to the other, the data with the backings and, in this case, they would be that ...?-Students had obstacles in questioning of their own thinking and evaluating claims on a scientific-basis. This seemed to be a seldom routine in school biology. Consequently, the teacher promoted that his students have a healthy skepticism toward local press media and their own everyday way of thinking. Questions arise on the epistemic status of scientific knowledge and one?s viewpoint.