Analysis of the oral argumentative competence of high school biology students in structured debates

Downloads

Article abstract page views:  383  

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2025.v22.i3.3202

Info

Vol. 22 No. 3 (2025): 22(3), november 2024
Experiences, resources and other work
3202
Published: 27-09-2025
PlumX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Authors

Abstract

This research analyses the arguments, counterarguments and refutations offered by a group of 21 high school students (16-18 years old) in two debates integrated within a training programme to develop competence in scientific argumentation and carried out in the subjects of Biology and Geology in the first and second year of Biology, respectively. The debates focused on two daily life problems related to health (sugar consumption and vaccination). The structure proposed by Oros (2007) for oral classroom debates was followed. The presence of the basic elements of an argument according to Toulmin (2019) was determined for the analysis of the arguments, and the different types described by Leitão (2000) were categorised for the analysis of the counterarguments and refutations. In general terms, there is an improvement in the students' oral argumentative competence and a gradient of difficulty is detected, in the sense that arguing is, for the students participating in the research, easier than counterarguing and this, in turn, is easier than refuting.

Keywords

Oral argumentation Google Schoolar
structured debate in the classroom Google Schoolar
Biology Google Schoolar
Baccalaureate Google Schoolar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Supporting Agencies  

Este trabajo forma parte del Proyecto I D i «Ciudadanos con pensamiento crítico: Un desafío para el profesorado en la enseñanza de las ciencias», referencia PID2019-105765GA-I00, financiado por MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.

How to Cite

García-Pérez, J. A., Cebrián-Robles, D., & Blanco-López, Ángel. (2025). Analysis of the oral argumentative competence of high school biology students in structured debates. Revista Eureka Sobre Enseñanza Y Divulgación De Las Ciencias, 22(3), 3202. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2025.v22.i3.3202

License

Copyright (c) 2025 José Antonio García-Pérez, Daniel Cebrián-Robles, Ángel Blanco-López

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Require authors to agree to Copyright Notice as part of the submission process. This allow the / o authors / is non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons is available on flexible copyright licenses (Creative Commons).

Reconocimiento-NoComercial
CC BY-NC

References

Arzi, H. J. (2015). Longitudinal Studies in Science Education. En: R. Gunstone (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Science Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_186

Blanco, P. y Díaz, J. (2014). Argumentación y uso de pruebas: Realización de interferencias sobre una secuencia de icnitas. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 32(2), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1009

Blanco, P., Díaz, J. y Cardoso, P. C. (2019). Las destrezas argumentativas en la evolución de modelos en una actividad de geología. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 16(3), 310501-310522 https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2019.v16.i3.3105

Brown, Z. (2015). The use of in-class debates as a teaching strategy in increasing students’ critical thinking and collaborative learning skills in higher education. Educational Futures: British Education Studies Association 7(1), 39-55.

Consejería de Desarrollo Educativo y Formación Profesional. (2023). Orden de 30 de mayo de 2023, por la que se desarrolla el currículo correspondiente a la etapa de Bachillerato en la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía, se regulan determinados aspectos de la atención a la diversidad y a las diferencias individuales y se establece la ordenación de la evaluación del proceso de aprendizaje del alumnado. Boletín Oficial de la Jun­ta de Andalucía, (104), de 2 de junio de 2023.

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

Frijters, S., Dam, G. y Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction, 18, 66-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.001

García-Pérez, J. A., Cebrián-Robles, D. y Blanco-López, Á. (2019). A training programme to improve the argumentation skills of biology students aged 16-18. Pilot study [Comunicación]. XXIII Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA).

González-Howard, M., McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. y Proctor, C. P. (2017). Does it answer the question or is it French fries? An exploration of language supports for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 528-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1294785

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A. y Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196-205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

Ibraim, S. de S. y Justi, R. (2022). Actions that contribute to science teaching involving argu­mentation and their relationships with pedagogical content knowledge. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 27(1), 388–414. https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2022v27n1p388

Iordanou, K. y Kuhn, D. (2019). Contemplating the opposition: Does a personal touch matter? Discourse Processes, 57(4), 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.631203

Iordanou, K. y Rapanta, C. (2021). “Argue with me”: A method for developing argument skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 631203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631203

Jackson, M. (2009). Debate: A neglected teaching tool. Peabody Journal of Education, 50(2),150-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619567309537907

Jager, J., Putnick, D. L. y Bornstein, M. H. (2017). More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2010). 10 Ideas Clave: Competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Graó.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. y Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2

Jiménez-Tenorio, N., Vicente-Martorell, J.J. y Oliva-Martínez, J. M. (2020). Fomentar la argumentación en clase de ciencias a través de una controversia sociocientífica en futuros docentes. Ápice: Revista de Educación Científica, 4(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.17997/arec.2020.4.1.4639

Kelly, T. (1986). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher's role. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 113-138.

Kennedy, R. R. (2007). In-class debates: Fertile ground for active learning and the cultivation of critical thinking and oral communication skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 183-190.

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L. y Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students' thinking and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692722

Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022695

Maguregi-González, G., Uskola-Ibarluzea, A. y Burgoa-Etxaburu, M. B. (2017). Modelización, argumentación y transferencia de conocimiento sobre el sistema inmunológico a partir de una controversia sobre vacunación en futuros docentes. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 35(2), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2229

Maguregi-González, G., Uskola-Ibarluzea, A. y Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2009). La compe­tencia argumentativa en la toma de decisiones ante un problema ambiental. Enseñanza de las ciencias, Número Extra, 1097-1100.

McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R. y Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers´ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21264

Megalakaki O. y Tiberghien A. (2011). A qualitative approach of modelling activities for the notion of energy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(1), 157-182.

Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (2022). Real Decreto 243/2022, de 5 de abril, por el que se establecen la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas del Bachillerato. Bo­letín Oficial del Estado. (82).

Muñoz, V., Franco, A. J. y Blanco, Á. (2020). Integración de prácticas científicas de argumenta­ción, indagación y modelización en un contexto de la vida diaria. Valoraciones de es­tudiantes de secundaria. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Cien­cias, 17(3), 3201. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2020v17.i3.3201

Nygård-Larsson, P. y Jakobsson, A. (2020). Meaning-making in science from the perspective of students’ hybrid language use. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 811-830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763

Oros, A. L. (2007). Let's debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701558273

Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S.-Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in scien­ce. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316

Outlon, C., Dillon, J. y Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690332000072746

Pérez-Echeverría, M. P., Postigo, Y. y García-Mila, M. (2016). Argumentation and education: Notes for a debate. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 39(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111607

Plantin, C. (2004). Pensar el debate. Revista Signos, 37(55), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342004005500010

Puig, B. y Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2009). ¿Qué considera el alumnado que son pruebas de la evolución? Alambique: Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 62, 43-50.

Rapanta, C. (2019). Argumentation strategies in the classroom. Vernon Press.

Rapanta, C. y Walton, D. (2016). Identifying Paralogisms in Two Ethnically Different Contexts at University Level. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 39(1), 119-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111610

Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M. y Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483-520. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606

Ruiz, J. J., Solbes, J. y Furió, C. (2013). (2013, septiembre 9-12). Los debates sociocientíficos: Un recurso para potenciar la competencia argumentativa en las clases de física y química [Comunicación ]. IX Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias.

Sardá, A. y Sanmartí, N. (2000). Ensenyar a argumentar cientificament: Un repte de les classes de ciències. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 18(3), 405-422.

Seah, L. H. (2016). Elementary teachers’ perception of language issues in science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9621-8

Seah, L. H. y Yore, L. D. (2017). The roles of teachers’ science talk in revealing language demands within diverse elementary school classrooms: A study of teaching heat and temperature in Singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 39(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1270477

Shi, Y. (2020). Talk about evidence during argumentation. Discourse Process, 57(9), 770-792. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1768405

Simonneux, L. (2008). Argumentation in Socio-Scientific Context. En S. Erduran y M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179-199). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_9

Solbes, J. (2013). Contribución de las cuestiones sociocientíficas al desarrollo del pensamiento crítico (I): Introducción. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2013.v10.i1.01

Solbes, J. y Vilches, A. (2004). Papel de las relaciones entre ciencia, tecnología, sociedad y ambiente en la formación ciudadana. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 22(3), 337-347. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.4010

Solbes, J., Ruiz, J.J. y Furió, C. (2010). Debates y argumentación en clases de física y química. Alambique: Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales. Graó.

Toulmin, S. E. (2019). Los usos de la argumentación. Marcial Pons.

Walton, D. N. (1991). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

Watts, F. M. y Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A. (2021). The current state of methods for establishing reliability in qualitative chemistry education research articles. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 22, 565-578. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00007A

Yang, C. y Rusli, E. (2012). Using debates as a pedagogical tool in enhancing preservice teachers´ learning and critical thinking. Journal of International Education Research, 8(2),135-154. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v8i2.6830

Zare, P. y Othman, M. (2013). Classroom debate as a systematic teaching/learning approach. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28(11), 1506-1513.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. y Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science education, 89(3),357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048

Most read articles by the same author(s)