Modelos argumentativos: análisis tipológico para su aplicabilidad en el aula

Abstract

In the last two decades, school has focused its interest on the development of argumentative processes as an important tool in different fields of knowledge and the development of critical thinking. Currently, people can find different argumentation models raised by various writers. Despite being quite a few, the truth is that there does not seem to be a clear direction for orienting and selecting the models according to their need or convenience for applying them in the classroom. Therefore, this article depicts the results of a comparative analytical research of main argumentative models and their representatives: Aristotle (1982, 1988), Gotama (1913; the nyāya school or Indian logic), Socrates (Platón, 2010, Crát.), Empirical Sixth (1996), the Vitandine philosophers (Indian negative argumentation), School of logic (Shi), School of names –Chinese–, Toulmin (2007), De Zubiría (2001) and De Zubiría (2006), Díaz (2014), Adam (1992), Van Dijk (1996a, 1996b), Van Eemeren (2019), Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2002), Perelman (2007), and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1989). This analysis allowed classifying all these models into four types (formal, conceptual, persuasive and pragmadialectic) based on their elements and structure. Once this analysis has been carried out, the applicability of each of them in the teaching processes is evaluated according of the following criteria: contributions to the construction of knowledge; implied communication skills; favored thought processes; attitudes, values, and emotions that model allows to develop; limitations of each model; as well as the type of population for which they are most relevant. In summary, it is intended to offer tools that allow teachers and researchers to recognize the main existing argumentative models, their characteristics, possible benefits, and the scope of their application in the classroom.

Keywords:

classroom argumentation argumentative models argumentative structure

References

Adam, J. M. (1992). Les textes: types et prototypes. Nathan.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2014). Revisiting school scientific argumentation from the perspective of the history and philosophy of science. En M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1443-1472). Springer.
Archila, P. A. (2016). ¿Cómo formar profesores de ciencias que promuevan la argumentación?: lo que sugieren avances actuales de investigación. Profesorado: Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 20(3), 399-432. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/567/56749100009.pdf
Aristóteles. (1982). Tratados de lógica (Órganon) I: categorías. Tópicos. Refutaciones sofísticas (M. Candel Sanmartín, Trad., vol. 1). Gredos.
Aristóteles. (1988). Tratados de lógica (Órganon) II: sobre la interpretación. Analíticos primeros. Analíticos segundos (M. Candel Sanmartín, Trad., vol. 2). Gredos.
Arnau, J. (2008). El arte de probar: ironía y lógica en la India antigua. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Aslan, S. (2019). The impact of argumentation-based teaching and scenario-based learning method on the students’ academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.171
Cant, R. P. y Cooper, S. J. (2011). The benefits of debriefing as formative feedback in nurse education. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(1), 37-47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279544883_The_benefits_of_debriefing_as_formative_feedback_in_nurse_education
Chan, W. T. (Ed.). (1963). A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton University Press.
Chen, C. Y., Huang, H. J., Lien, C. J., y Lu, Y. L. (2020). Effects of multi-genre digital game-based instruction on students’ conceptual understanding, argumentation skills, and learning experiences. IEEE Access, 8, 110643-110655. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3000659
Cheng, A. (2002). Historia del pensamiento chino. Edicions Bellaterra.
Convertini, J. (2021). An interdisciplinary approach to investigate preschool children’s implicit inferential reasoning in scientific activities. Research in Science Education, 51, 171-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09957-3
Cooper, S. J., y Cant, R. P. (2014). Measuring non-technical skills of medical emergency teams: an update on the validity and reliability of the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Resuscitation, 85(1), 31-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.08.276
D’Amore, B. (2005). La argumentación matemática de jóvenes alumnos y la lógica hindú (nyaya). Uno: Revista de Didáctica de las Matemáticas, (38), 83-99.
De Zubiría, J. (2006). Las competencias argumentativas: la visión desde la educación. Magisterio.
De Zubiría, M. (2001). Teoría de las seis lecturas. FAMDI.
Díaz, Á. (2014). Retórica de la escritura académica: pensamiento crítico y argumentación discursiva. Universidad de Antioquia.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., y Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Estupiñán, M. R., Puentes, A. I., Mahecha, M., y Rey, C. A. (2013). Investigación cualitativa: métodos comprensivos y participativos de investigación. Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Pereira.
Gotama. (1913). [NS] The Nyāya Sūtras of Gotama. Sudhīndranātha Vasu.
Guilfoyle, L., Hillier, J., y Fancourt, N. (2021). Students’ argumentation in the contexts of science, religious education, and interdisciplinary science-religious education scenarios. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1947223
Hernández Rodríguez, J. C. (2020). La función de la palabra: el lenguaje en la relación pensamiento-realidad de algunas escuelas filosóficas indias. Polisemia, 16(30), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.26620/uniminuto.polisemia.16.30.2020.24-40
Jepsen, R. M. H. G., Dieckmann, P., Spanager, L., Lyk-Jensen, H. T., Konge, L., Ringsted, C., y Østergaard, D. (2016). Evaluating structured assessment of anaesthesiologists’ non-technical skills. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 60(6), 756-766. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12709
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., y Brocos, P. (2021). Emotional tension as a frame for argumentation and decision-making: Vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 662141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662141
Lopera, J. D., Ramírez, C. A., Ucaris, M., y Ortiz, J. (2010). El método analítico. Centro de Investigaciones Sociales y Humanas.
Macagno, F., y Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702
Najami, N., Hugerat, M., Kabya, F., y Hofstein, A. (2020). The laboratory as a vehicle for enhancing argumentation among pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 29, 377-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00107-9
Perelman, C. (2007). Lógica formal y lógica informal. Praxis Filosófica, (25), 139-144. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2090/209014642009.pdf
Perelman, C., y Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1989). Tratado de la argumentación: la nueva retórica. Gredos.
Ping, I. L. L., Halim, L., y Osman, K. (2020). Explicit teaching of scientific argumentation as an approach in developing argumentation skills, science process skills and biology understanding. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(2), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.276
Plantin, C. (1998). Les raisons des émotions. En M. Bondi (Ed.), Forms of argumentative discourse: per un'analisi linguistica dell'argomentare (pp. 3-50). CLUEB; Universidad de Bolonia.
Platón. (2010). Crátilo. En A. Alegre Gorrí y J. L. Calvo (Eds.). Obra completa 1 (pp. 529-606). Gredos.
Rodríguez Ortiz, A. M. (2020). Condiciones de posibilidad del conocimiento y espacios de posibilidad lógica. Pensamiento: Revista de Investigación e Información Filosófica, 75(287), 1393-1410. https://doi.org/10.14422/pen.v75.i287.y2019.001
Ruiz-Ortega, F. J., y Dussan Luberth, C. (2021). Competencia argumentativa: un factor clave en la formación de docentes. Educación y Educadores, 24(1), 30-50. https://doi.org/10.5294/educ.2021.24.1.2
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. Springer.
Sardà, A. M., y Sanmartí, N. (2000). Enseñar a argumentar científicamente: un reto de las clases de ciencias. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 18(3), 405-422. http://hdl.handle.net/11162/23315
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Sexto Empírico. (1996). Esbozos pirrónicos (A. Gallego Cao y T. Muñoz, Trads.). Planeta DeAgostini.
Topalsan, A. K. (2020). Development of scientific inquiry skills of science teaching through argument-focused virtual laboratory applications. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 628-646. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.628
Toulmin, S. (2007). Los usos de la argumentación. Península.
Van Dijk, T. (1996a). Estructuras y funciones del discurso. Siglo XXI.
Van Dijk, T. (1996b). La ciencia del texto. Paidós.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (2019). La teoría de la argumentación: una perspectiva pragmadialéctica (K. Wolf y C. Santibáñez, Trads.). Palestra Editores.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., y Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Springer.
Van Eemeren, F. H., y Grootendorst, R. (2002). Argumentación, comunicación y falacias: una perspectiva pragmadialéctica. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile.
Vātsyāyana. (1939). Nyāyasūtrabhaṣya. En G. Jha (Ed.), Gautama’s Nyāyasūtras with Vātsyāyanabhaṣya. Oriental Book Agency.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Investigaciones filosóficas. En I. Reguera (Ed.), Obra completa (A. García Suárez y U. Moulines, Trads., vol. 1, pp. 155-634). Gredos.

Cited by