Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Entrepalavras |
Texto Completo: | http://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/article/view/1398 |
Resumo: | This study aims to investigate differences in argumentative reasoning of undergraduate students who have gone through three different pedagogical experiences. The argumentative reasoning is a metacognitive activity held through strategies such as justification of ideas, anticipation of alternative and opposing perspectives, and rebuttal of divergent perspectives (KUHN, 1991). The analytical specificity of this study consists on comparison of argumentative strategies that appear as one thinks about everyday and controversial topics. The method was based in adaptations of the interview script proposed by Kuhn (1991), that is, individual semi-structured interviews about two common, social and controversial topics in which participants should develop their perspectives (causal theories), justify them using evidence, anticipate alternative theories and counter-arguments, and rebuttal these divergent perspectives. The study included 15 participants divided into three groups according to the subjects they studied: six students of a course that focuses on the argument as a mediator of teaching and learning of contents from Psychology curriculum (DIP), four students of Introduction to Logic (DIL), and five students of another humanities course which does not focus on the development of the reasoning. The data were analyzed in two levels: analysis in order to identify the set of the data collected among the categories proposed by Kuhn (1991), and compare possible differences in argumentative strategies displayed by the participants in the debate on the proposed topics. The analysis showed that the inclusion of disciplines that focused on the improvement of reasoning (DIP and DIL) mobilizes in the individual a tendency to think about the grounds (through the development of evidence) and limits of their ideas (anticipating counter-arguments and alternative theories). So this study argues that factors such as motivation, lack of prior preparation and concepts about the main objective of the argument (defense’s own point of view and consideration of alternative perspectives) can explain the weak performance observed in some skills. |
id |
UFC-9_8c04b1e98f24cbd00b6dfc77167730a9 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.localhost:article/1398 |
network_acronym_str |
UFC-9 |
network_name_str |
Entrepalavras |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practicesEstratégias argumentativas de universitários participantes de três diferentes práticas pedagógicasArgumentation in Higher Education. Logic in Higher Education. Argumentative Reasoning.Argumentação no Ensino Superior. Lógica no Ensino Superior. Raciocínio Argumentativo.This study aims to investigate differences in argumentative reasoning of undergraduate students who have gone through three different pedagogical experiences. The argumentative reasoning is a metacognitive activity held through strategies such as justification of ideas, anticipation of alternative and opposing perspectives, and rebuttal of divergent perspectives (KUHN, 1991). The analytical specificity of this study consists on comparison of argumentative strategies that appear as one thinks about everyday and controversial topics. The method was based in adaptations of the interview script proposed by Kuhn (1991), that is, individual semi-structured interviews about two common, social and controversial topics in which participants should develop their perspectives (causal theories), justify them using evidence, anticipate alternative theories and counter-arguments, and rebuttal these divergent perspectives. The study included 15 participants divided into three groups according to the subjects they studied: six students of a course that focuses on the argument as a mediator of teaching and learning of contents from Psychology curriculum (DIP), four students of Introduction to Logic (DIL), and five students of another humanities course which does not focus on the development of the reasoning. The data were analyzed in two levels: analysis in order to identify the set of the data collected among the categories proposed by Kuhn (1991), and compare possible differences in argumentative strategies displayed by the participants in the debate on the proposed topics. The analysis showed that the inclusion of disciplines that focused on the improvement of reasoning (DIP and DIL) mobilizes in the individual a tendency to think about the grounds (through the development of evidence) and limits of their ideas (anticipating counter-arguments and alternative theories). So this study argues that factors such as motivation, lack of prior preparation and concepts about the main objective of the argument (defense’s own point of view and consideration of alternative perspectives) can explain the weak performance observed in some skills.Este estudo investigou diferenças no raciocínio argumentativo de universitários egressos de três diferentes práticas pedagógicas. O raciocínio argumentativo é uma atividade fundamentalmente metacognitiva, que se realiza através da justificação de ideias, antecipação de perspectivas alternativas e contrárias, e réplica a perspectivas divergentes (KUHN, 1991). Foram realizadas entrevistas, semiestruturadas e individuais, sobre dois tópicos quotidianos, sociais e polemizáveis, com 15 universitários. Dentre os entrevistados, seis estudantes de Psicologia, egressos de uma disciplina introdutória à Psicologia (DIP), que foca a prática intensiva de argumentação como mediadora no ensino-aprendizagem de conteúdos curriculares; quatro alunos de Filosofia, egressos de uma disciplina introdutória à Lógica (DIL) e cinco alunos de Ciências Sociais, curso que não possui em sua estrutura curricular práticas com foco específico no desenvolvimento do raciocínio dos estudantes. As entrevistas foram analisadas com base em categorias propostas por Kuhn (1991) e, em seguida, os dados dos três grupos-alvo foram comparados quanto a possíveis diferenças nas estratégias argumentativas usadas pelos respectivos participantes. As análises mostraram que a inserção em disciplinas focadas na melhoria do raciocínio (DIP e DIL) se associa a uma tendência no indivíduo a refletir sobre os fundamentos e limites de suas ideias, através da elaboração de justificativas e evidências e da antecipação de contra-argumentos e teorias alternativas, respectivamente. Entretanto, discute-se que fatores como motivação, falta de preparo prévio e conceituações acerca do objetivo central da argumentação, a saber, defesa do próprio ponto de vista e consideração de perspectivas alternativas, podem explicar o limitado desempenho observado em algumas competências.Universidade Federal do CearáCNPqAmaral, Stefânio Ramalho doLeitão, Selma2019-04-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttp://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/article/view/139810.22168/2237-6321-11398Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-572237-6321reponame:Entrepalavrasinstname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)instacron:UFCporhttp://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/article/view/1398/583Direitos autorais 2019 Entrepalavrasinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2019-04-30T21:50:42Zoai:ojs.localhost:article/1398Revistahttp://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/indexPUBhttp://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/oaiwebmaster@entrepalavras.ufc.br||editor@entrepalavras.ufc.br2237-63212237-6321opendoar:2019-04-30T21:50:42Entrepalavras - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices Estratégias argumentativas de universitários participantes de três diferentes práticas pedagógicas |
title |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices |
spellingShingle |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices Amaral, Stefânio Ramalho do Argumentation in Higher Education. Logic in Higher Education. Argumentative Reasoning. Argumentação no Ensino Superior. Lógica no Ensino Superior. Raciocínio Argumentativo. |
title_short |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices |
title_full |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices |
title_fullStr |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices |
title_full_unstemmed |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices |
title_sort |
Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices |
author |
Amaral, Stefânio Ramalho do |
author_facet |
Amaral, Stefânio Ramalho do Leitão, Selma |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Leitão, Selma |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
CNPq |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Amaral, Stefânio Ramalho do Leitão, Selma |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Argumentation in Higher Education. Logic in Higher Education. Argumentative Reasoning. Argumentação no Ensino Superior. Lógica no Ensino Superior. Raciocínio Argumentativo. |
topic |
Argumentation in Higher Education. Logic in Higher Education. Argumentative Reasoning. Argumentação no Ensino Superior. Lógica no Ensino Superior. Raciocínio Argumentativo. |
description |
This study aims to investigate differences in argumentative reasoning of undergraduate students who have gone through three different pedagogical experiences. The argumentative reasoning is a metacognitive activity held through strategies such as justification of ideas, anticipation of alternative and opposing perspectives, and rebuttal of divergent perspectives (KUHN, 1991). The analytical specificity of this study consists on comparison of argumentative strategies that appear as one thinks about everyday and controversial topics. The method was based in adaptations of the interview script proposed by Kuhn (1991), that is, individual semi-structured interviews about two common, social and controversial topics in which participants should develop their perspectives (causal theories), justify them using evidence, anticipate alternative theories and counter-arguments, and rebuttal these divergent perspectives. The study included 15 participants divided into three groups according to the subjects they studied: six students of a course that focuses on the argument as a mediator of teaching and learning of contents from Psychology curriculum (DIP), four students of Introduction to Logic (DIL), and five students of another humanities course which does not focus on the development of the reasoning. The data were analyzed in two levels: analysis in order to identify the set of the data collected among the categories proposed by Kuhn (1991), and compare possible differences in argumentative strategies displayed by the participants in the debate on the proposed topics. The analysis showed that the inclusion of disciplines that focused on the improvement of reasoning (DIP and DIL) mobilizes in the individual a tendency to think about the grounds (through the development of evidence) and limits of their ideas (anticipating counter-arguments and alternative theories). So this study argues that factors such as motivation, lack of prior preparation and concepts about the main objective of the argument (defense’s own point of view and consideration of alternative perspectives) can explain the weak performance observed in some skills. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-04-30 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/article/view/1398 10.22168/2237-6321-11398 |
url |
http://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/article/view/1398 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.22168/2237-6321-11398 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://www.entrepalavras.ufc.br/revista/index.php/Revista/article/view/1398/583 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Direitos autorais 2019 Entrepalavras info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Direitos autorais 2019 Entrepalavras |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Ceará |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Ceará |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57 Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57 Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57 Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57 Entrepalavras; v. 9, n. 1 (9): A argumentação nas práticas sociais; 36-57 2237-6321 reponame:Entrepalavras instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) instacron:UFC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
instacron_str |
UFC |
institution |
UFC |
reponame_str |
Entrepalavras |
collection |
Entrepalavras |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Entrepalavras - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
webmaster@entrepalavras.ufc.br||editor@entrepalavras.ufc.br |
_version_ |
1798329728337182720 |