The explicit use of the Toulmin model in collaborative dialogic environment, and its effects on the understanding of the coordination class “force”: A case study


Πρακτικά Εκτεταμένων Συνόψεων Εργασιών
Published: Sep 27, 2023
Keywords:
conceptual change argumentation force
Costas Naoum
Vasileios Kollias
Abstract

This paper presents the results from the analysis of the dialogues of groups of secondary school students in a dialogic environment of argumentation in the course of physics and in the cognitive field "force and motion". The learning environment evoked intuitive perceptions and made instructional use of the Toulmin model through an artifact aimed at activating the mechanism of Quinian bootstrapping. The microgenetic analysis of the dialogues was based on the theoretical approaches of coordination class theory (CCT) (diSessa & Sherin, 1998). The analysis highlighted intertwined processes of coordination and bootstrapping, which led to students' conceptual improvement in the (concept) coordination class (CS) of force.

Article Details
  • Section
  • 1. TEACHING AND LEARNING IN SCIENCE
Downloads
References
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187.
Berland, L. K., & Russ, R. S. (2017). Conceptual change through argumentation: A process of dynamic refinement. Converging perspectives on conceptual change, 180-189.
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
disessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International journal of science education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational psychologist, 47(3), 177-188.
Chi, M. T., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns in peer collaboration that promote learning. Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue, 263-274.
Levrini, O., & diSessa, A. A. (2008). How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: Proper time as a coordination class. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4(1).
Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Close, K., & Evans, M. (2018). Key challenges and future directions for educational research on scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 5-18.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The physics teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. A. (2013). Microgenetic learning analysis: A methodology for studying knowledge in transition. Human Development, 56(1), 5-37.
Ruthven, K., Hofmann, R., Howe, C., Luthman, S., Mercer, N., & Taber, K. (2011). The epiSTEMe pedagogical approach: Essentials, rationales and challenges. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 31(2), 131À136.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.