Ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations for the study of scientific argumentation mediated by Concept Cartoons in elementary education
Abstract
The process of teaching natural sciences in elementary school presents various challenges; one of the most significant is the development of scientific reasoning and the search for strategies that help bridge this gap. This article presents the ontological, epistemological, and methodological rationale for a study aimed at evaluating a pedagogical strategy for developing scientific reasoning among fifth-grade elementary students through the use of Concept Cartoons at an educational institution in Soacha, Colombia. This research is grounded in a social constructivist framework with an interpretive epistemological articulation between the empirical-analytical and socio-critical components, as it is approached from a mixed-methods design that allows for the simultaneous understanding of changes in argumentation levels and the analysis of the discursive processes that emerge during the process. The quantitative component is organized using a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests and a rubric, while the qualitative component employs a micro-ethnographic analysis utilizing participant observation, recordings, and focus groups. The validity of the assessment will be determined through expert judgment and Aiken’s V coefficient. This proposal is expected to contribute to the consolidation of methodological approaches for the study of scientific reasoning in schools and to the design of strategies that promote science education in elementary school.
Downloads
References
Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955–959.
Alcaldía Municipal de Soacha. (2022). Plan de Desarrollo Municipal 2020–2024: Soacha ciudad del progreso.
Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–31.
Angrosino, M. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Sage.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Falmer Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Teoría crítica de la enseñanza: La investigación-acción en la formación del profesorado. Martínez Roca.
Comte, A. (1830). Cours de philosophie positive (Vol. 1). Bachelier.
Comunidad Económica Europea, & Alcaldía de Soacha. (2022). Caracterización territorial de Soacha.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage.
Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística [DANE]. (2023). Proyecciones de población por municipio 2018-2035.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Durkheim, E. (1895). Les règles de la méthode sociologique. Félix Alcan.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer.
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). Academic Press.
Escobar-Pérez, J., & Cuervo-Martínez, A. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en Medición, 6, 27–36.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogía del oprimido. Siglo XXI. (Obra original publicada en 1970).
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogía del oprimido (ed. rev.). Siglo XXI Editores. (Obra original publicada en 1970).
Giroux, H. A. (1990). Los profesores como intelectuales: Hacia una pedagogía crítica del aprendizaje. Paidós.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.
Habermas, J. (1987). Conocimiento e interés. Taurus.
Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6.ª ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Instituto Colombiano para la Evaluación de la Educación (ICFES). (2021). Informe nacional de resultados pruebas SABER 5º y 9º – Ciencias naturales. https://www.icfes.gov.co/
Instituto Colombiano para la Evaluación de la Educación (ICFES). (2022). Resultados de las pruebas SABER 5.
Instituto Colombiano para la Evaluación de la Educación (ICFES). (2024). Resultados de Colombia en las pruebas PISA 2022.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Deakin University.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN). (1998). Lineamientos curriculares de Ciencias Naturales y Educación Ambiental. https://www.mineducacion.gov.co
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2004). Estándares básicos de competencias en ciencias naturales y educación ambiental. https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/articles-89906_archivo_pdf_naturales.pdf
Ministerio de Educación Nacional [MEN]. (2006). Estándares básicos de competencias en ciencias naturales y educación ambiental. MEN.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN). (2016). Derechos Básicos de Aprendizaje (DBA) en Ciencias Naturales para educación básica primaria.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2020). Orientaciones pedagógicas para la educación básica y media. https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/portal/Educacion-basica-y-media/
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN). (2022). Informe de cobertura y calidad educativa.
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17–39.
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE). (2015). Mejorando la educación en el siglo XXI: Un enfoque basado en competencias. OCDE Publishing.
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE). (2020). Resultados de PISA 2018: Informe sobre educación en ciencias. OCDE Publishing.
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Pereira Pérez, Z. (2011). Los diseños de método mixto en la investigación en educación: Una experiencia concreta. Revista Electrónica Educare, 15(1), 15–29.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Toulmin, S. E. (2007). Los usos de la argumentación. Península.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press.
Copyright (c) 2026 Lizeth Paola Romero Rodriguez, Diego Raul Carrillo Mojica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
