Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis
Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis
复制标题
科学论证中的谈判：人际分析
DOI：
10.1002/tea.21713
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Duffield, C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Governor, D.;Lombardi, D.;Duffield, C.
论证使学生能够通过合理化基于支持证据的主张来参与真实的世界科学实践。学生参与科学论证激活了学生发展和捍卫基于证据的主张的谈判过程。然而，鲜为人知的是，在科学论证过程中，学生之间的谈判的复杂过程和潜在的模式。本研究试图通过探索一组大学科学教育专业的学生在评估证据线和现象的替代解释模型之间的关系时如何谈判来填补这一空白（即，气候变化）。本研究以社会建构主义为理论基础，运用韩礼德的系统功能语言学模式，在语篇分析框架内进行。作者分析了学生在模型证据链接活动中的对话记录，以深入了解谈判模式。以情绪和动作为中心的人际分析揭示了学生参与科学论证的谈判部分的能力，以断言证据和模型之间的关系。有效的合作，导致小组的共识的关系（分类为支持，强烈支持，或矛盾）促进了使用疑问，调制，和一个平衡的贡献之间的小组成员。相反，没有达成共识的谈判的特点是小组成员之间的讨论不平衡，包含更多的中断，更多的冲突举动，和双重极性条款。
Argumentation enables students to engage in real world scientific practices by rationalizing claims grounded in supporting evidence. Student engagement in scientific argumentation activates the negotiation process by which students develop and defend evidence‐based claims. Little is known, however, on the intricate process and potential patterns of negotiation between students during scientific argumentation. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring how a group of university science education students negotiated when evaluating the relationship between lines of evidence and alternative explanatory models of a phenomena (i.e., climate change). This research, theoretically grounded in social constructionism, used Halliday's model of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) within a discourse analysis framework. The authors analyzed transcripts of student conversations during a model‐evidence link activity to gain insights into patterns of negotiation. An interpersonal analysis centering on mood and moves revealed students' ability to engage in the negotiation component of scientific argumentation to make assertions about relations between evidence and models. Effective collaboration resulting in group consensus of the relationship (categorized as supports, strongly supports, or contradicts) was facilitated by the use of interrogatives, modulation, and a balanced contribution between group members. Conversely, negotiation which did not reach consensus featured less balanced discussion among group members, contained more interruptions, more conflict moves, and double polarity clauses.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.12973/eurasia.2015.1338a
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
--
作者：
S. Ryu;W. Sandoval
通讯作者：
W. Sandoval
通过论证检验学生知识建构的谈话与写作的整合。
影响因子：
0.8
作者：
Ying
通讯作者：
Ying
基于实践的专业发展计划对小学教师促进和学生参与科学论证的影响
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
The American Educational Research Journal
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Osborne;H. Borko;Evan J. Fishman;Florencia Gomez Zaccarelli;Eric Berson;K. Busch;Emily Reigh;Anita Tseng
通讯作者：
Anita Tseng
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Chin, Christine;Osborne, Jonathan
通讯作者：
Osborne, Jonathan
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Gonzalez-Howard, Maria;McNeill, Katherine L.
通讯作者：
McNeill, Katherine L.