Title: Argumentación y concepciones implícitas sobre física: un análisis pragmadialéctico
Other Titles: Argumentative discourse and implicit conceptions about physics: a pragma-dialectic analysis
Argumentação e conceições implícitas sobre física: uma análise pragma-dialética
Authors: Gutiérrez R., Mario Fernando
Correa Restrepo, Miralba
Keywords: ARGUMENTACIÓN
DISCURSO ARGUMENTATIVO
ANÁLISIS PRAGMADIALÉCTICO
ARGUMENTATION
ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE
DISCURSIVE ANALYSIS
ARGUMENTAÇÃO
ANÁLISE PRAGMA-DIALÉTICA
PENSAMIENTO
COGNICIÓN
LÓGICA
PSICOLOGÍA SOCIAL
Issue Date: Jun-2008
Publisher: Universidad Católica de Colombia. Facultad de Psicología
Citation: Gutiérrez R., M., & Correa R., M. (2008). Argumentación y concepciones implícitas sobre física: un análisis pragmadialéctico. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 11(1), 55-63. Recuperado de https://editorial.ucatolica.edu.co/ojsucatolica/revistas_ucatolica/index.php/acta-colombiana-psicologia/article/view/316
Abstract: El propósito de este artículo es explorar cómo el discurso argumentativo promueve la comprensión que tienen niños de 8 a 10 años de edad sobre las variables que son inherentes al fenómeno físico de rebotar. Desde una perspectiva social, se reconoce que la interacción entre pares les permite a los niños y niñas contrastar las creencias ajenas con sus propias ideas y llegar a acuerdos que contengan cláusulas de validez para todos los participantes en la situación. A través de un análisis discursivo se muestra cómo el discurso argumentativo genera un conocimiento que más que compartido, reconoce la convergencia de diferentes estilos de pensamiento y construye nuevas formas de pensar los fenómenos físicos.
Bibliography 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. & Yakmaciguzel, 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.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10983/585
ISSN: 0123-9155
Is part of: Acta Colombiana de Psicología, Vol. 11, no. 1 (ene.-jun. 2008); p. 55-63
Appears in Collections:CAA. Acta Colombiana de Psicología

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
v11n1a06.pdf110.36 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.