Edyth Priscilla Campos Silva, Luiz Gustavo Franco, Paloma Blanco Anaya

Critical Thinking in Development: An Analysis of Interactions in a Socioscientific Debate

Introduction

Critical thinking in development: an analysis of interactions in a socioscientific debate. Analyze critical thinking development in science education interactions during socioscientific debates. Students learn to evaluate scientific evidence and build democratic positions for a post-truth era.

Abstract

Critical thinking (CT) is a goal pursued by the field of science education in the 21st century. However, CT often appears as a cometic criticism or something without a deeper understanding of the issues analyzed. In this paper, we mobilize references capable of giving visibility to CT components under development in science lessons interactions. Based on Ethnography in Education, we followed science lessons of a class over 8th and 9th grades of Elementary School and selected discursive interactions for CT analysis, during the debate on a controversial issue. Instructional contexts experienced by the classroom became resources for students to position themselves, understanding the relevance of using and evaluating scientific evidence and evidence from other domains, in addition to the collaborative role in the construction of democratic positions. These results align with paths that have been thought of by the ​​Science Education field for a post-truth era.

Review

This paper addresses a highly pertinent and critical area within science education: the development of critical thinking (CT). The authors correctly identify a significant challenge, noting that while CT is a widely espoused goal, its implementation often results in superficial engagement or a lack of profound understanding. This sets a strong foundation for their work, which aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of CT components as they emerge and develop within authentic classroom interactions. By focusing on the 'development' aspect and mobilizing specific theoretical references, the study seeks to move beyond a static assessment of CT to reveal its dynamic, situated nature. The methodological approach, rooted in Ethnography in Education, is well-suited to capture the intricate and evolving nature of CT development. The decision to follow students over two grade levels (8th and 9th grade Elementary School) allows for a longitudinal perspective on learning and interaction, which is crucial for observing 'development' rather than just a snapshot. Analyzing discursive interactions within a socioscientific debate provides a rich, ecologically valid context, as these controversial issues naturally elicit complex argumentation and evaluation of evidence. The abstract's mention of mobilizing 'references capable of giving visibility to CT components' suggests a theoretically informed lens for analyzing these interactions, which is promising for advancing our understanding beyond mere description. The results presented underscore the potential of instructional contexts, particularly socioscientific debates, as powerful scaffolds for CT. The finding that students utilized these contexts to position themselves, evaluate diverse forms of evidence (scientific and otherwise), and engage in collaborative construction of democratic positions is highly significant. This demonstrates that CT is not merely an individual cognitive skill but also a deeply social and contextualized practice. The paper's alignment of these outcomes with the needs of a 'post-truth era' provides a compelling justification for its work, suggesting practical pathways for science educators to cultivate more discerning and engaged citizens. This research offers valuable insights into how educators can design environments that foster genuine critical engagement, moving beyond superficial criticism towards a deeper, evidence-based understanding of complex issues.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.