Drawing from literature in the social studies of science, this paper historicizes two pivotal concepts in science literacy: the definition of life and the assumption of objectivity. In this paper we suggest that an understanding of the historical, discursive production of scientific knowledge affects the meaning of scientific literacy in at least three ways. First, a discursive study of scientific knowledge has the epistemological consequence of avoiding the selective perception that occurs when facts are abstracted from the historical conditions of (...) their emergence. Second, a discursive approach to scientific knowledge can also be an example of science‐as‐exploration. Third, literacy and discourse studies contribute insights that alter assumptions about pedagogical appropriateness in science education. The paper concludes by suggesting that when science literacy includes the historical production of scientific knowledge, it can thereby extend the possibilities for what can be thought, studied and imagined in the name of science education. (shrink)

Toulmin (2001) sostiene que la invención de las disciplinas,un cambio iniciado en el siglo XVII, involucró factores tantointelectuales como institucionales. Intelectualmente, el uso dela geometría cartesiana como modelo de conocimiento proveyólos fundamentos; institucionalmente, la división del trabajo enprofesiones y disciplinas hizo el resto. Sin embargo, este cambiose produjo lentamente y sólo alcanzó su apogeo durante el sigloXX, con la conformación de lo que Snow (2012) reconoce comolas dos culturas: las Humanidades y las Ciencias Naturales.Focalizando esta distinción, proponemos reflexionar sobre laargumentación (...) escrita en dos disciplinas (Letras y Biología)desde la perspectiva toulminiana. Al respecto, consideramosque los argumentos y los modos de escribirlos están tanprofundamente ligados a las disciplinas que resulta esencialsaber y reconocer cómo operan estos procesos a fin de entenderla lógica de dichos campos. En efecto, las particularidades decada disciplina están siempre presentes a la hora de escribir yde argumentar por escrito. Todo texto pertenece, por lo menos,a un género y a una disciplina; como tal, emplea movimientosretóricos particulares que varían de comunidad en comunidady de un tipo de discurso a otro. Este trabajo, retoma lapropuesta de Toulmin (2003, 2001) y busca dar cuenta de lasespecificidades de la argumentación escrita en dos carrerasuniversitarias argentinas (Letras y Biología). Así, después dehaber efectuado un trabajo de campo que comprendió, duranteun semestre, observación participante de clases, entrevistasa docentes y alumnos y recolección de documentos áulicos(exámenes escritos y trabajos prácticos), distinguimos cuatrorasgos que caracterizan la argumentación en los ámbitosdisciplinares de las Humanidades y de las Ciencias Naturales:(1) los grados de formalidad; (2) los grados de precisión; (3) losmodos de resolución; y (4) las metas de la argumentación. Estoscuatro rasgos permiten complejizar los elementos estables delesquema toulminiano y pensar sus usos, sus aplicaciones y susalcances en las disciplinas. (shrink)

Argumentation, and the production of scientific arguments are critical elements of inquiry that are necessary for helping students become scientifically literate through engaging them in constructing and critiquing ideas. This case study employed a mixed methods research design to examine the development in 5th grade students’ practices of oral and written argumentation from one unit to another over 16 weeks utilizing the science writing heuristic approach. Data sources included five rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments that (...) occurred over eleven class periods; students’ group writings; interviews with six target students and the teacher; and the researcher’s field notes. The results revealed five salient trends in students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices over time: Students came to use more critique components as they participated in more rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments; by challenging each other’s arguments, students came to focus on the coherence of the argument and the quality of evidence; students came to use evidence to defend, support, and reject arguments; the quality of students’ writing continuously improved over time; and students connected oral argument skills to written argument skills as they had opportunities to revise their writing after debating and developed awareness of the usefulness of critique from peers. Given the development in oral argumentative practices and the quality of written arguments over time, this study indicates that students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices is positively related to each other. This study suggests that argumentative practices should be framed through both a social and epistemic understanding of argument-utilizing talk and writing as vehicles to create norms of these complex practices. (shrink)