Science Education International

Vol. 27, Issue 4, 2016, 489-508

Argumentation markers: Their emergence in the speech of

physics teacher educators

RODRIGO DRUMOND VIEIRA1, HUMBERTO DE MEDEIROS

DIAS, VIVIANE FLORENTINO DE MELO, SILVANIA SOUSA
DO NASCIMENTO
Abstract

In this article we approach the problem of identification and recognition of

argumentation by teacher educators of a physics undergraduate course of a large
university in the southeast of Brazil. Our proposed markers criteria, such as
“opposing” of ideas and “reciprocal justifications” were partially validated by the
investigated teacher educators in conducted interview processes. Most of them
mixed aspects of argumentation with explanation and others offered alternative
visions of argumentation in science teaching. These results are problematic since
changes in basic education passes through the formation and education of new
teachers and in-service teachers in teachers’ science programs. Implications of the
study are raised as well the need to clarify more to the community of teacher
educators the nature of argumentation and how it differs from explanations.

KEY WORDS: Argumentation, Physics Teacher Education, Alternative

conceptions on argumentation, Explanations, Markers Criteria

INTRODUCTION
This article is aimed both to the general public of researchers and teachers
in general, especially university teachers, concerned with the definitions
and nature of argumentation. Teachers can widen or restrict teaching and
learning opportunities for students via the discourse patterns they establish
and manage in their classrooms (Kelly, 2013). Inserted in the “discursive
turn” milestone in modern psychology (Billig, 1996; Kuhn, 1992),
argumentation within science classes has been the object of several
research projects over the past twenty years, and the results found point
increasingly to the importance of this particular form of discourse to
science teaching (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008).
However, a common factor in many Brazilian science classrooms
is the complete lack of incentive to argumentation by the part of teachers
(Vieira & Nascimento, 2013). Researches over the past twenty years show
that discussion, via argumentation, in science teaching, is essential to
make students understand science – the very nature of science – as well as
1
Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Universidade Federal Fluminense – Brazil, RJ
489
appreciate and exercise the scientific argumentation (Jiménez-Aleixandre
& Erduran, 2008; Kelly, 2013; Osborne, 2014).
Argumentation in classrooms can be beneficial to students as it: 1)
develops the ability to understand concepts; 2) builds statements
supported by evidence so as to give opinions and criticize other students’
concepts, as well their own opinions; 3) allows reflection on a number of
topics; 4) allows teacher and peer evaluation, since the presentation of
arguments can be publicly acknowledged; 5) allows a greater
development of autonomy and decision making abilities on a number of
subjects, including socio-scientific issues (Vieira & Nascimento, 2013). In
short, the practicing of argumentation in the classroom offers favorable
conditions for the development of the dimensions of construction of
persuasive procedures and attitudes in the students skills (Santos,
Mortimer & Scott, 2001; Reis, 2013).
Results observed in this, as well as in other researches, are
reflected in official educational documents, both in Brazil and abroad. In
the US, both the American Association for Advancement of Science
(AAAS, 1993) and the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) have
pointed out the importance of students in understanding how scientific
knowledge is attained and how argumentation can contribute to the
construction of this knowledge base. National Research Council [NRC]
(2012, explains that “science is not just a body of knowledge that reflects
current understanding of the world; it is also a set of practices used to
establish, extend, and refine that knowledge. Both elements—knowledge
and practice—are essential” (p. 26).
Nationally, in Brazil, the PCN+ (Abbreviation meaning “National
Curriculum Parameters for High School Education”, is in loose
translation. The definition dates from 2002) states that the introduction of
argumentation in science teaching is essential, since it contributes to the
process of building scientific knowledge, as well as the ability to
argument and offer opportunities for judgment of various statements
based on available evidence. This ability is considered a prerequisite for
an active and fair exercise of citizenship.
The PCN+ (Brasil, 2002, p.12) states that:

Informing and keeping informed, communicating, expressing one’s

self, presenting logical argument, accepting or rejecting arguments,
manifesting preference, pointing out contradictions, adequately
using terminology, codes or means for communication are general
competences that should be integral resources of all fields of study.
That, as such, should be developed when learning any and all of
them.

One can clearly see, then, that argumentation is a

recommendation for science teaching. Therefore, one could ask why
teacher educators still resist when it comes to introducing argumentation
in their classroom activities. Several possible causes may be listed, among

490
which is the “reproduction” ´problem (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1975;
Bourdieu, 2001), particularly in science teacher undergraduate courses.
This means the issue could be linked directly to the practices and
constructs being used in such undergraduate teaching certificate courses
for science teachers.
According to previous results our research conducted inside such
undergraduate science teaching courses (Vieira & Nascimento, 2008;
Vieira & Nascimento, 2013), pre-service teachers undergoing such
courses and their respective teacher educators show alternative
preconceptions and lack of knowledge of what argumentation actually is
and how to introduce it into the classroom. This point is important
because the role of the teacher is imperative in fostering a classroom
culture that successfully promotes argumentation (McNeill, 2009). Faced
with this problem, we acknowledge the importance of science teachers
recognizing and being able to understand clearly the differences between
argumentation and other “discursive orientations” as such (e.g.
explanation, narration, description, injunction and dialogue (see Vieira &
Nascimento, 2013; Vieira & Kelly, 2014; Vieira & Nascimento, 2015a).
Both argumentation and explanation are built on reasoning
(justifications), which can lead to confusion on the part of researchers and
science teachers when considering the differences between those
discursive orientations in their teaching practices in the classroom.
Therefore, having teachers master these two types of discursive
orientations can be considered even more crucial – if they cannot
differentiate them, their students are certain to be puzzled when it comes
to doing the same.
With that problem in mind, we will present in this paper various
constructs that physics teacher educators have put forth on what
argumentation is for them and then compare those constructs with the
markers criteria for argumentation previously proposed by the same
Vieira & Nascimento (2009) and (2013) – all based on converging fields
of references (Billig, 1996; Adam, 2008; Bronckart, 1996).
To make such constructs explicit, interviews were conducted with
previously selected physics teacher educators from both the Physics
Institute and the Faculty of Education of a large public university in
Southeast Brazil. All interviewed teacher educators have taught – or still
teach – certificate courses for undergraduate physics students of the
department of the same institution. The interview questions were
developed aiming to raise the main teaches' motives, goals, strategies and
difficulties of introducing argumentation in their classes. There were
asked 8 questions to the each teacher. The analyzed question was the third
one. We decided to analyze only this question because it is directly related
to our research aims in this article. In this sense, the main purpose of this
study is:
Raise the conceptions of a group of teacher educators and
compare their visions with the criteria we developed to identify and
characterize argumentation;

491
For this, we were guided by the following research questions:

1) How argumentation can be differentiated from other types of

discursive orientations, including explanation? Which criteria can
help teachers recognize and work with argumentation?
2) Which conceptions a group of physics teacher educators' held
about argumentation when interviewed?
3) Which are the convergences and divergences among the teachers'
views and the developed criteria?

The analysis of the responses was conducted based on the criteria

proposed by (Vieira & Nascimento, 2009), and is based on theoretical
references consolidated and converging from the previous mentioned field
studies. Thus, based on those references, we will now establish what
argumentation is from this convergence perspective – in the next topic.

WHAT IS ARGUMENTATION?
Personal opinion, according to Breton (1999), is essential to understand
argumentation. To this author, opinion is, at the same time, the set of
beliefs, values and world representations held by a particular individual.
Opinion is under constant change. It can be understood as a possible point
of view – so, when two diverging opinions meet, the individuals
interacting can produce arguments to defend their particular points of
view, with the aim of convincing each other of their own particular point
of view. It can be said that the argument is used to justify a specific
opinion, with the goal of convincing a specific target audience.
Billig (1996) defines the argumentative context as “opposition
and reasoning”. Vieira & Nascimento (2013), clarify the importance of
differentiating argumentation from other such “discursive orientations” –
particularly from explanation, also characterized by reasoning. According
to Billig, a sentence may have a completely different meaning depending
on the context in which it’s uttered – so one must take into account what
is being criticized and against which particular reasoning the counter-
argument shall be presented.
Billig shares the thoughts of Protagoras, the sophist: it is possible
to present an argument that favors both sides of a debate. In an
argumentation, the notion of truth is directly linked to context and,
therefore, is relative. Thus, if an opinion is criticized with a counter-
argument, new arguments can be linked and added to the original one so
as to criticize the counter-argument presented – and thus forth.
Once again, it can be seen that an argument that is valid under
certain social circumstances might not prove valid once the setting is
changed. Billig presents examples of how arguments can change form in
different contexts: forensic arguing, where opinions and counter-opinions
are very well defined; deliberative argumentation, referring directly to the
492
political speech in which the speaker is trying to persuade or dissuade
their target audience; and epideitic argumentation, where the speaker
formally reveres an individual, such as in a funeral, context in which
argumentation is implicit since the speaker tends to workaround to avoid
explicit the weakness of the dead person.
Billig (1996), through Aristotle’s work, refers to the relative tone
of the argument to distinguish between mathematical logic and arguing. In
the presentation of an argument, the notion on enthymeme is of central
concern and consists of a statement accompanied by a justification, and
this justification may be criticized. After criticism, a new enthymeme will
be required to support the initial argument and this new enthymeme, on
itself, might be subject to criticism. And this continues to be what
characterizes the argumentation. One can reach the conclusion that
arguments must be treated under a more enthymemic perspective, rather
than under a syllogistic one, since syllogisms have a non-controversial
characteristic because the premises themselves actually carry the
conclusions within them.
Billig (1996) suggests that arguing is possible under the existence
of “the other”. Meaning another person with whom one might be able to
argue. The author emphasizes that the continuous search for the last word
in an argument is a constantly present characteristic, and also observes
that listeners are not always willing to accept arguments easily. Actually,
on most occasions, listeners in an argumentation scenario prove to be
inflexible and avid defenders of their own words. Therefore, persuasion is
not always the end result, however good the arguments favoring a
particular stand might be. As Billig explains, the ultimate search for the
last word should not be seen as the sole motive behind the argumentative
process, but rather as the factor responsible for its maintenance
From these perspectives on argumentation, one question can be
raised: how to introduce the argumentation process into science classes?
For the answer, let’s introduce and discuss the concept of “discursive
orientation”.

ARGUMENTATION AND DISCURSIVE ORIENTATIONS

Discursive genres are stable discursive situations that arise from various
social contexts (Rojo, 2005). Vieira & Nascimento (2013) propose to
investigate how the different forms of textual language organization
(called “sequences” by Adam, 2008) are articulated to compose the genres
employed in a science class. Textual sequences are forms of language
organization that, according to Adam (2008) are forms of textual language
structure that surpass and entail the phrasal level of analysis.
Adam defined each sequence in terms of a particular prototype in
a way that a segment of text may be closer or further from a particular
prototype. As an example, the Toulmin Argument Pattern (Toulmin,
1958) can be considered a prototype to analyze the structure of arguments.
Here, six types of relevant sequences are being considered when
493
investigating the textual patterns developed in a science class:
argumentative, explicative, narrative, descriptive, dialogue and injunctive.
It can be highlighted that the explicative discursive orientation is very
often mistaken for the argumentative discursive orientation (Vieira &
Nascimento, 2013).
From these sequences and considering the real discourse
situations, in which one's can merge discourse patterns with others, with
no clear boundaries but with a dominant one that determines the scope of
the patterns been developed, we recognize, from these sequence types, six
kinds of discursive orientations (e.g. argumentative, narrative, explicative,
descriptive, injuncive, dialogue). That is, six types of dominant discursive
patterns that shapes one's discursive contributions and in turn are shaped
by these same contributions.
As we mentioned, students and teachers do not know the
differences between explanation and argumentation. It becomes
necessary, then, to create clear criteria to allow the understanding of their
differences and the implications for teaching and learning.
Bronckart (1999) considers the explanatory thinking to have
originated, mainly, from the consideration of an indubitable phenomenon
by the interacting parties. One basic difference between argumentation
and explanation is the controversial or non-controversial character of the
statements. If presented as an argument, a statement becomes
controversial while, in explanation, a statement is considered a shared
instance between the parties – meaning it is presented as something that
cannot be disputed, but that might require development or widening of
concepts due to some gaps in knowledge.
According to Charaudeau & Maingueneau (2004), a certain
symmetry between parties is required for the establishment of an
argumentation, in a way that the acknowledgment of the various status
levels among them concerning the subject at hand can be reciprocal. This
means one tends to engage in an argumentation only when it can be
verified that the opposing party possesses at least almost the same level of
knowledge of the subject at hand. Thus, both opinions can be viewed as
probable instead of one establishing itself as indubitable due to the
asymmetry between the parties.
Explanation, on the other hand, implies a greater asymmetry
between the parties: one of the involved will be viewed as a spokesperson
for a particular subject. The spokesperson will then have authority, which
would come from an privilege of social status or from the higher
knowledge and comprehension of a particular topic. Usually, in a
classroom, this party is the teacher. He or she holds a highly asymmetric
position in regard to the students. This distinction can be diminished,
however, depending on the way the teacher presents the topic and the
concepts being presented.
The teacher’s posture when managing discussions by means of
eliciting answers and providing opportunities for the students to speak up
are ways of stimulating the establishment of an argumentative situation.

494
According to research conducted by Vieira (2007), in teacher methods
courses, argumentation can took place when students were familiar with
the concepts, as well as when the subject at hand was of public knowledge
– and most people feel comfortable giving opinions on such subjects. This
means the asymmetry described here is also directly linked to the
familiarity and knowledge a student has on certain topics. Thus, it
becomes essential to set up strategies and procedures that aim at reducing
the asymmetry between the parties in a way to allow for a greater use of
argumentation in the classroom. Additionally, a set of strategies and
procedures must be drawn to guarantee that the asymmetry will be later
regained when the teacher took this decision.
Thus, the importance of the differentiation and understanding of
argumentation as a discursive resource is essential. For that aim, teachers
should also understand and differentiate the discursive patterns, so as to
promote the same understanding for their students (Abd-el-Khalick, 2003;
Dawson & Venville, 2010; Knight & McVeill, 2011; Osborne et. al.,
2013; Simon, Erduran & Osborne, 2006; Zembal-Saul et. al., 2002). In
our case, we differentiate these patterns from the notion of discursive
orientation.
In this paper the analysis of the responses given by teachers in
interviews on what argumentation is will be presented and compared with
the markers criteria for argumentation proposed by Vieira & Nascimento
(2009, 2013). Finally, the implications and perspectives for research and
teacher education will be presented as well.

METHODOLOGY PROCEDURES
The first step in the methodological procedures was conducting
semi-structured interviews with teacher educators working in a
undergraduate certificate physics course. The teachers were chosen based
on the following criteria: 1) the personal experience of the second author
of this paper, since he studied in such a course and experienced the
teaching and pedagogical practices first hand because the author was
student of the major part of the teachers of this group; 2) dialogues with
several colleagues taking the same course, where the same author had the
opportunity to inquire about the opinions of those teachers; 3) in the
willingness of the teacher educators when asked to take part of this study.
Inquiries were made in these interviews regarding the “presenting
an argument” theme, and the first question was defined as:

“What is argumentation in your understanding?”

In this article we will focus only in the responses to this first

question. The second stage was the construction of the “narrations
frames” (component of the method for discourse analysis proposed by
Vieira, Kelly & Nascimento, 2012; Vieira & Kelly, 2014) for each
interviewee, where the answers to that particular question were narrated
495
by the analyst. The narrations frames are presented in Table 1, where the
analysis of the responses is shown.
Table 1: “What is argumentation in your understanding’?”

Teacher Narrative of the responses Summary

States “I don’t really understand much” and To this teacher,
that teaching shouldn’t be simply presenting a argumentation is
concept or, to put it rather rudely, “forcing on” presenting and
Roberto
a concept. The idea would rather be to present discussing a particular
and discuss, to build an idea based on the concept in the
presentation of an argument. classroom.
States that argumentation (as far as common
sense goes) happens when a dialogue can be
established to explain and justify her thoughts
on something; and that this is putting forth an
argument (“When I do this I’m presenting an
argument”). In this process she states she
presents reasons and justifications to explain a
particular phenomenon and to justify her
position by presenting an argument. The
teacher says she’ll listen to other arguments
and, should a consensus present itself, she
might even be inclined to yield on some points
This teacher considers
– and other participants could do so as well.
argumentation to be the
She states the notion of dialogue is essential to
process of explaining a
Maria the concept of putting forth an argument. She
particular point of view
presents an example of the “falling body”,
and justifying it through
where she states: “The body falls down
a dialogue.
because it goes down, period. So I’ll explain
why it’s falling downward and why it can’t fall
upward”. She mentions she’ll use her arguing
power to explain something. She also says she
can present justifications and reasoning even
beyond the concept of a conclusive perspective
– as is the case with abortion or the death
penalty. In those cases, her arguments will
focus on which principles are involved in
defining her position in those issues – and
according to her, this is what presenting an
argument really is.

496
 The presenting of arguments is a process
where two people are engaged in a dialogue.
And for this dialogue to exist, and with it an
opposing of ideas, it’s necessary for the person
to be willing to listen to the other. This will
only happen if both voices are empowered, if
both people respect each other as the producer
of a speech to which it is worthwhile to listen.
He exemplifies by stating that a teacher should
To this teacher,
keep a dialogue-based posture and always try
argumentation is
to listen to the student – because this is the
Matias establishing a dialogue
only way, he says, to establish a dialogue
where ideas can be
that’s fundamental to the development of the
opposed.
argumentation process. It is also necessary,
according to him, for the dialogue’s focus to
create an environment for the opposing of
ideas, for which one subject can position
himself, while the other stays against the main
idea. This will allow a debate to develop. He
concludes saying these are the conditions
necessary for the establishment of
argumentation processes in the classroom.
To this teacher
This teacher states that argumentation in the
argumentation is giving
classroom means the teacher is offering the
their students the
students an opportunity to express their own
opportunity to speak
Daniela ideas, build their own thought processes and
and build their thought
ideas. And that happens when there’s dialogue
process, and that it
in the classroom and the student is allowed
should be done through
time to speak.
dialogue.
States that argumentation is presenting
arguments. In general, this happens when one
tries to defend a particular point of view or line To this teacher
of thought, and when one tries convincing a argumentation is
counterpart that theirs is the correct point of defending a point of
view. And for that, according to him, one must view based on facts or
Felipe
present some facts. The argument is the fact or lines of thought
line of thought and the argumentation process (arguments) with the
is the idea of organizing and connecting these intent of convincing
arguments in a clear way, so that you can someone.
convince any counterpart of your point of
view.
To this teacher,
This teacher says that, to him, argumentation is argumentation is a
a critical form of debate, where people put critical debate of a
forth their points of view without forcing their subject, where people
Rafael
opinion onto others, but for a better present points of view
understanding of the subject at hand. He for a better
believes argumentation is essential. understanding of
something.
To this teacher,
argumentation is
This teacher states that argumentation is the
building ideas based on
Anderson building of thought processes based on
data or facts that can
evidence.
show how the thinking
process is correct.

497
 The third step was the construction of a synthetic version of the
“narrations frame” for each interviewee, which basically consists of
synthesizing each teacher’s response (see third column in table 01). The
fourth and final step was the analysis of the absence or presence (both
explicit and implicit) of the aforementioned markers in the teacher’s
speech.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Based on the theoretical grounds presented in this paper we can now
evaluate the initial concepts the interviewed teacher educators have of
argumentation.
Prior to the analysis stage, the teachers in question will be briefly
described, their lecturing subjects specified, as well as their working
standards and roles. All teachers have been given assumed names to
safeguard their privacy.

Roberto
Roberto teaches two subjects: Physics III (covering hydro and
thermodynamics, waves and optics) and Experimental Physics IV
(covering an assortment of modern physics experiments). Both subjects
are taught in the undergraduate Physics course, as well as in some of the
engineering courses taught by the same University. In the Physics III
subject his practices entail the explanation of concepts by following the
syllabus predefined by the coordination. In Experimental Physics IV he
assists students in assembling the experiments following the steps
predefined in another syllabus. Afterwards, he indicates which
measurements should be taken and described in a report that will be
handed in for evaluation. In the first, he behaves as a “concept explainer”
by following the contents and scripts of the textbook. In the second, his
role is more that of an instructor, teaching students how to assemble pre-
made experiments and how to use them for measurement, as well as how
to treat those measurements so conclusions can be drawn on the
phenomena involved in the apparatus.
This teacher states in his interview that argumentation is
presenting and discussing a particular concept in the classroom – meaning
the introduction of a theme and its following discussion.
The word “discussion” is overloaded with meanings that may or
may not be in line with the definitions of what argumentation is given by
Vieira & Nascimento (2013). To discuss, in the sense of opposing, is a
perspective that meets the dialectic proposed by authors. Thus, this
teacher implicitly presented a concept on argumentation that is in line
with one of the definitions given by Authors, “opposition”. However, the
teacher failed in making explicit what he understands as “presenting and
discussing a particular concept in the classroom”. Would it be, maybe, to

498
“introduce a topic and talk about it”? In this case, where would
justification stand among the argumentation developed in the classroom?
This analysis indicates the presence of the “opposition” marker,
but the “reciprocal justification” marker was absent. The teacher himself
acknowledged the fact that he does not “really understand much” on the
subject of argumentation.

Maria
Maria teaches a single subject: Syllabus Production and Strategies
for the Teaching of Physics II, available only for the undergraduate
Teaching Physics course. In her classes, she asks students to read texts
pertaining to trends and methods of physics teaching so that afterwards
they can be discussed by the class. By the use of scripts, she proposes the
production of syllabuses that will aid in the teaching of physics, such as
experimental kits.
The teacher performs two roles: 1) debate mediator in the
classroom, making sure students do not deviate from the subject at hand,
commenting on certain statements and proposing the students be
questioned on their opinions, urging them to support their points of view;
2) the role of instructor and helper in the assembly of experiments and the
confection of lectures and classes involving said experiments.
Thus, she seeks to teach her students how to create syllabuses and their
classroom applications. In several instances, experience is exchanged by
all present in the classroom. She measures this exchange and it becomes
richer by studying the texts and assembling the experiments.
This teacher states, in her interview, that argumentation is explaining a
specific point of view and supporting it with reasoning by means of a
dialogue. This means, in essence, making your opinion known and stating
your reasons to hold it.
In Vieira & Nascimento (2013) it is stated that teachers and
students are not clear on the difference between explanation and
argumentation. One can note that the definition given by the teacher
differs from that proposed by Vieira & Nascimento (2013): she thinks
argumentation is explaining an opinion and supporting it with
justifications without, however, expecting a counter position from the
audience. In the presentation of an argument the statements are more
controversial while, in explanation, they are non-controversial – meaning
they are presented as indubitable. There are not, in her statement, any
indicators that there should be reciprocal justifications nor that there
should be opposition of ideas between the parties in argumentative
situations.
This analysis shows that both the “opposing ideas” and the
“reciprocal justifications” markers were absent.

499
Matias
Matias teaches two subjects in the undergraduate Teacher Physics
course: teaching methods course II and teaching methods course IV. Both
are focused on understanding and building the pedagogical knowledge of
concepts (Shulman, 1986), or practical knowledge of future teachers via
the combination of both subjects with the mandatory internship. He also
teaches one subject at the Post-Graduation Course of the Teacher
Education Department. In all his subjects, he usually requires students to
read certain literature, normally pertaining to the trends and methods of
physics teaching, so that they can be openly discussed in the following
classes.
To that end, this teacher acts as a debate mediator between
students, comments on opinions put forth and does not allow students to
get off the topic. During the debate, besides commenting the ideas of the
excerpt’s author, students present personal opinions on the text and topic
and support those opinions with reasoning. This is when the
argumentation takes place: opinions can be agreed or disagreed with via
the presentation of counter-arguments.
The subjects taught by this teacher allow for reflection and
argumentation of topics and he takes on the role of director, steering the
debate with notes and incitements that generate more and more
arguments. Said debates have, in this case, the power to incite reflection,
build and widen awareness on educational issues in general and of the
science teaching in particular.
This teacher states, in his interview, that argumentation is
establishing a dialogue where ideas can be opposed, a conversation where
parties present different opinions.
One can see that this definition meets the Vieira & Nascimento
(2013) propositions head on: argumentation is an opposing of ideas where
there should be reciprocal justifications to support opinions given. One
can also note that this second premise is not in the teacher’s definition,
since he does not mention reasoning nor reciprocal justification.
Furthermore, the teacher repeatedly uses the word ‘dialogue’ to define
argumentation. Dialogue and argumentation are, however, different
discursive orientations as can be seen on Vieira, Kelly & Nascimento,
(2012), Vieira & Nascimento(2013).
Thus, the teacher merges two discursive orientations to define one
–argumentation – which he sees as a dialogue. This is a troublesome
perspective, since the two discursive orientations do not overlap as noted
in Vieira & Nascimento (2013). Another way to understand the teacher's
stance is to perceive how dialogue may open the adequate space for
arguing; Under this stance, dialogue could precede argumentation, making
it’s arisal a possibility.
This analysis shows the “opposing ideas” marker was present,
while the “reciprocal justifications” one was not. Additionally, the teacher
mistakenly overlaps the definitions of dialogue and argumentation.

500
Felipe
Felipe teaches only one subject: Statistical Physics, taught in the
Physics BSc. In his classes he basically explains the subject’s concepts
and, according to his own evaluation, attempts to teach the students a
logical thinking process towards the resolution of exercises. To that end
he takes on the role of lecturer, predominantly, which in turn tends to
impose a logic he himself considers to be the most adequate and correct in
the solution of problems. He does not encourage his students to take an
active role in his classes, and his reasoning behind this posture is that the
students themselves make the undertaking – discussing and actively
participating in class – very hard.
This teacher states, in his interview, that argumentation is
defending a point of view based on fact or line of thinking (argument),
aiming to convince another – meaning trying to convince another person
that your personal opinion is the correct one, supporting that argument
with facts or lines of reasoning.
The teacher’s construct meets only the first premise proposed by
Vieira & Nascimento (2013): when he states that argumentation is
defending a point of view aiming to convince another, one can infer that
diverging opinions enticed a party to state their argument – and therefore,
this implicitly touches the “opposing of ideas” marker. However, when
the teacher states that, in order to defend a point of view one should use
fact or argument, can it be inferred that he means the use of justifications?
If one does go as far as assuming that, one must still ask oneself if that
reasoning is reciprocal – which is not clear on this teacher' concept. We
can conclude that, explicitly, this second marker is missing.
The analysis shows the “opposing of ideas” marker is present,
while the “reciprocal justifications” one is not.

Rafael
Rafael teaches only one subject: Statistical Physics taught in the
Post-Graduation in Physics course. In his classes, he explains the concepts
of the subject basing his explanation on the textbook and without enticing
any sort of debate or classroom interaction. Thus, he takes on the role of
lecturer – meaning he behaves as a traditional teacher from the
perspective of physics research. He states that alternative lessons are
difficult to prepare because of the unyielding nature of the subject and of
the reduced number of students in his classes.
This teacher states, in his interview, that argumentation is
critically debating a subject in a situation where people present a
particular point of view so that they can better understand the subject at
hand – meaning they discuss and present opinions on a particular subject
matter.
From this statement one can infer that the expression “to critically
debate” entails both the opposing of ideas and the reciprocal justifications
to support those ideas, since a debate necessarily means there are
diverging opinions and both agreement and disagreement about those

501
ideas. The teacher, however, does not explicitly specify what he means by
the phrase “critically debating a subject”. In fact, the teacher may be
considered exceedingly succinct in presenting his definition.
This analysis shows the implicit presence of both the “opposing of
ideas” and “reciprocal justifications” markers.

Daniela
Daniela teaches a single subject: Syllabus Production and
Strategies for the Teaching of Physics I at the undergraduate Teaching
Physics course. In her lessons, she proposes the construction of low cost
syllabus materials by following scripts that will aid the physics teaching –
such as experimental kits. She also requires students to read texts that,
overall, approach current physics teaching methods so that the class can
discuss them on future opportunities.
In this case the teacher takes on two different roles: 1) the
instructor and helper in the construction of experimental kits and the
planning of lessons that include those kits; 2) the debate mediator role,
making sure students don not deviate from the subject matter, offering
comments on specific opinions and steering the discussion toward
questioning the opinions of the text authors and other students, making
sure they support every idea put forth.
In this way, the teacher seeks to develop in her students the ability
to think critically and to reflect on the reading and discussing of topics, as
well as other abilities connected with building syllabuses and their use. On
many occasions, with the aim of showing more effective methods, she
promotes the exchange of experience among those present in the
classroom so that new ideas can be put in practice. All of these stances are
always supported by the texts and experiments being studied.
Daniela states, in her interview, that argumentation is giving the
student the opportunity to speak up and build their thought process
through dialogue – meaning a teacher should provide the adequate
environment for sharing opinions and discussion, so that all may build
knowledge through experience.
She connects argumentation and dialogue (the same way Matias
did), and says that only through those can knowledge be built. We
acknowledge that giving the student the space and opportunity to speak up
is an important didactic stance on the teacher’s part, especially when it
comes to inciting an argument. However, this teacher does not associate,
in her entire presentation, the concept of argumentation with the idea of
contradiction. Thus, by merging dialogue and argumentation, she differs
from the theoretical base point for this role – which clearly differentiates
both discursive orientations. Therefore, both the “opposing of ideas” and
the “reciprocal justifications” markers are absent from her construct, since
she fails to make explicit that students should support their opinions and
try to convince each other of their conclusions.
This analysis, in consequence, shows the absence of both markers.

502
Anderson
Anderson teaches two subjects: Thermodynamics, taught in the
undergraduate Physics courses; and Activities for Physics teaching, taught
exclusively at the undergraduate Teaching Physics course. On the
Thermodynamics subject, he mostly employs lectures on the concepts. On
the Activities for Physics Teaching, he usually requires students to
conduct the proposed exercises and activities in a previously given special
notebook so that, in the next lesson, the replies may be discussed by the
group.
In the first case (thermodynamics), he basically explains the
concepts of the subject, proposing questions and selecting students'
answers with the aim of attaining what is relevant for the sequence of the
lecture, dispensing answers that can be considered incorrect. Thus, he
performs mostly as a lecturer in this scenario. On the second stance
(activities for teaching), he is the dispenser of the correct answers:
students answer the questions in the notebook and support those answers
with reasoning, and he corrects both the answers and the reasoning as
required. Depending on the question posed and the number of students
diverging, he asks the group to present arguments of their interpretations.
During the following stage of the lesson students will debate their
viewpoints on the questions and physics situations presented, always
supporting those opinions with reasoning based on the laws and
definitions of physics and trying to convince each other of the correct
response. The teacher only intervenes when a law or definition is misused
during the reasoning. The teacher then takes on the role of corrector of
responses and reasoning.
This teacher states, in his interview, that argumentation is the
construction of reasoning based on evidence – meaning the ability to build
ideas based on data or facts that might strengthen or show the thinking
process to be correct.
The definition presented by this teacher is not in line with the
ones proposed by the Vieira & Nascimento (2009; 2013) – the ones based
on opposing of ideas and reciprocal justifications, where there should be
interaction of the parties, ideas should be put forth and supported with the
intent to convince one’s counterpart. In fact, the construction of lines of
thought based on evidence can be conducted without the opposing of
ideas and reciprocal justifications, since the support offered for a thought
process does not necessarily entail counter-reasoning or an opposing
thought.
This teacher affirms, in his interview, that argumentation is to
construct reasoning based on evidences, which means constructing ideas
based on data or facts that can strengthen or show that the reasoning is
correct.
This analysis shows the absence of both the “opposing of ideas”
and the “reciprocal justifications” markers.

503
 SYNTHESIS
Table 2, as follows, summarizes the analysis of the markers in each
teacher’s definitions.
Table 2: Results of the marker criteria analysis
Explicit
Explicit Implicit Implicit
presence
presence of presence presence of
of the
the of the the
Teacher “reciproca
“opposing “opposing “reciprocal
l
ideas” ideas” justification
justificatio
marker marker ” marker
n” marker
Roberto No Yes No No
Maria No No No No
Matias Yes No No No
Felipe Yes No No No
Rafael No Yes No Yes
Daniela No No No No
Anderson No No No No

CONCLUSIONS
This study has potential to inform the field with results that add to
previous knowledge, such as: 1) how complex is the problem of
introducing argumentation in science education contexts, 2) on how the
teachers differentiate argumentation from other types of discourse and, 3)
providing means to establish contrasts among the established criteria and
the teacher's responses. It is important that teachers recognize
argumentation and differentiate it from explanation, for example. Such a
competency will help them to produce discursive practices in their
classroom more aligned with the recommendations of the official
documents. We consider the need of work on this issue not even because
it is a recurrent interpretation error, but also because, in speaking of
teacher education, such a mistake can turn itself in a chain reaction.
The argumentation process established in the classroom has great
potential to entails various subjects. In physics teaching it may be used as
a teaching method aimed at the enrichment of discussions and the
promotion of further development of abilities and capacities that are
essential in the making of a citizen – such as sharing information,
research, analysis, reflection and both individual and collective problem
solving. Additionally, it promotes the development of what can be
considered the citizen’s most important ability: the consciousness process
of decision making (Vieira & Nascimento, 2013).

504
 From this perspective, the basic education teacher has a
fundamental role, since it is in this stage that the students form the base of
their character and develop traits that will influence them for life. The
authors of this article defend, here, that the teacher should appreciate
quality education. However, there are still a very large number of
inconsistencies. This occurs for a number of reasons, including those
linked to a lack of knowledge of the discursive orientations: their
meanings, their differences (particularly the difference between
argumentation and explanation), what a dialogue is and which didactic
goals each of these discursive orientations best serves.
From the analysis presented, we offer our contribution, in this
paper, to the problem of the concepts of argumentation held by teacher
educators. Through this we were able to unveil one of the aspects of
teacher education that contributes to teachers – that are, on their part,
basic education teachers – having a closed stance toward promoting
argumentation in their classrooms. If teacher educators themselves still
promote lacking and alternative concepts of argumentation, teachers of
basic education levels will hardly be able to implement this resource as a
practical routine aspect of their lessons. This is a relevant problem inside
the teacher educators' community and courses – especially those directed
at science teaching – that should be dealt with more argumentation
processes.
Furthermore, more closed courses, such as Statistical Physics, as
described by the interviewed teachers, were understandable the courses
with more difficulties to promote argumentation as, in the view of the
interviewed teachers, such disciplines, due to their own characteristics, do
not allow argumentation processes. We agree that in this case arguments
and discussions are more difficult to implement, but even in this case this
is not impossible. One can always raise a counter-part against what is
lectured, and this can widen the comprehension of the topic that has been
taught. The argumentation should not only be viewed as a way to gain
correct conclusions, but, by the other side, in this case, reinforce these
correct conclusions by means of counter arguments which may enrich the
interactions by means of “firing” more complex thought processes in the
classroom discourse and thus, in the students' cognition and understanding
of the topic taught to the students.
We contend that this paper did not intend to bring forth the
detailed – and definite – concepts of argumentation held by the teacher
educators interviewed. The intention was to show how those concepts are
lacking in terms of the contradiction aspect of argumentation. The
reciprocal justification marker was also lacking in the interviewees’
definitions. However, even facing those results it can be noted that
teachers show understanding of other aspects of argumentation – such as
building lines of thought based on evidence, interaction, willingness to
hear and participate and attempting to convince one’s counterparts. Those
weren’t, however, the main points of this paper.

505
 In conclusion, argumentation in science education is still a
troublesome situation, even though it is widely recognized by the research
community and official documents as an urgent, paramount tool in XXI
century education. Thus, it is necessary to advance argumentation
research, with the goal of making it a solid aspect of school life. Other
such papers we published have shown that a simulated jury activity is an
important didactic resource in promoting quality argumentation in the
classroom (Vieira & Kelly 2014; Vieira et. al., 2015b). Teaching via
investigation, group and laboratory work, usage of information
technologies and the introduction of socio-scientific issues in the
classroom are all key components to establish argumentation in these
spaces. From that premise, research takes a fundamental role side with
teachers, aimed at stimulating the reasonable use of innovation in the
classroom so as to promote discursive practices that are more consistent
with the goals and objectives of current science education field.

REFERENCES
Abd-el-khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science
classrooms. In: Zeidler, Dana (Ed.).The role of moral reasoning on
socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Adam, J. M. (2008). A lingüística textual: introdução à análise textual
dos discursos. São Paulo, Cortez.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993)
Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061.New York: Oxford
University Press.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social
psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J C. (1975). A reprodução; elementos para uma
teoria do sistema de ensino. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Meditações Pascalianas. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand
Brasil.
Brasil, Secretaria de Educação Média e Tecnológica. (2002). PCN+
Ensino médio: Orientações educacionais complementares aos
parâmetros curriculares nacionais. Ciências da natureza,
matemática e suas tecnologias. Brasília: MEC, SEMTEC.
Breton, P. (1999). A argumentação na comunicação. 1ª Ed. Bauru SP:
EDUSC.
Bronckart, J. P. (1999). Atividade de linguagem, textos e discursos: por
um interacionismo sócio-discursivo. São Paulo: EDUC.
Charaudeau, P. & Maingueneau, D. (2004). Dicionário de análise do
discurso. São Paulo: Contexto.
Dawson, V. & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing
students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high
school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133– 148.

506
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in
science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, M. Jiménez-
Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent
developments and future directions. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kelly, G. J. (2013). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching.
In: Lederman, N.G., Abell, S. (ED), Handbook of research on
science education. NY: Routledge Volume 2.
Knight, A. M. & McNeill, K. L. (2011). The relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs of scientific
argumentation on classroom practice. In: Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62,
p. 155-178.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in
writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science
Education, 93, 2, 223 – 268.
National Research Council NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science
education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of
change. Journal of Science Teacher Education 25(2), 177–196.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C. &
Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools
and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common
instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347.
Reis, P. (2013). Da Discussão à Ação Sociopolítica sobre controvérsias
Sociocientíficas: uma questão de cidadania. Ensino de Ciências e
Tecnologia em Revista, 3(1).
Rojo, R. (2005). Gêneros do Discurso e Gêneros Textuais: Questões
Teóricas e Aplicadas. In: Meurer, J. L., Bonini, A.; Motta-Roth, D.
(org).Gêneros: Teorias, Métodos, Debates.São Paulo: Parábola.
Santos, W. L. P.; Mortimer, E, F. & Scott, P. H. (2001). A argumentação
em discussões sócio-científicas: reflexões a partir de um estudo de
caso. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, v. 1,
n. 1, p. 140-152.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), p. 04-14.
Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach
argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 235–260.
Toulmin S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vieira, R. D. & Kelly, G. J. (2014). Multi-level discourse analysis in a
physics teaching methods course from the psychological perspective

507
 of activity theory. International Journal of Science Education, v. 36
(16), 2.694-2.718.
Vieira, R. D. & Nascimento, S. S. (2008). Avaliações de argumentação de
licenciandos em Física sobre um episódio de estágio curricular: em
que critérios eles se baseiam? In: EPEF, XI (2008), Curitiba. Atas,
01-12.
Vieira, R. D. & Nascimento, S. S. (2009). Uma proposta de critérios
marcadores para identificação de situações argumentativas em salas
de aula de ciências. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física,
Florianópolis, 26, 81-102.
Vieira, R. D. & Nascimento, S. S. (2015a). Argumentação e orientações
discursivas na educação em ciências. (2015a). Ensaio: Pesquisa em
Educação em Ciências, Belo Horizonte, 17(3), 707-725.
Vieira, R. D. (2007). Situações argumentativas na abordagem da natureza
da ciência na formação inicial de professores de física. 173f.
Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação) – Faculdade de Educação,
UFMG, Belo Horizonte.
Vieira, R. D., Bernardo, J. R. R., Evagorou, M.& Melo, V. F. (2015b).
Argumentation in Science Teacher Education: The simulated jury as
a resource for teaching and learning. International Journal of Science
Education, 37(7), 1113-1139.
Vieira, R. D.& Kelly, G. J., Nascimento, S. S. (2012). An activity theory-
based analytic framework for the study of discourse in science
classrooms. Ensaio: Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Belo
Horizonte, 14(2), 13-46.
Vieira, R. D.& Nascimento, S.S. (2013). Argumentação no ensino de
ciências: tendências, práticas e metodologia de análise. Curitiba:
Appris.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P. & Land. S.
(2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based
arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in
Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.

508