Argumentative strategies of undergraduate students participating in three different pedagogical practices

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Amaral, Stefânio Ramalho do
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Leitão, Selma
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