Trabajando la respuesta ante enfermedades de origen alimentario a través del juego de rol

  1. Casas-Quiroga, Lucía 1
  2. Crujeiras-Pérez, Beatriz
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Journal:
Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas

ISSN: 0212-4521,  2174-6486

Year of publication: 2022

Volume: 40

Issue: 1

Pages: 221-241

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5565/REV/ENSCIENCIAS.3327 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This study analyses the information sources and the criteria used by high-school students (16-17 years old) in a role-playing game set in a fictitious country, in which a foodborne illness emerges. Students have to argue and make decisions to find the cause of the disease and stop it in two levels of organisation (small groups and large groups). The information sources and the criteria used in the students’ discussions are analysed separately in order to proceed with the resolution of the activity. The transcripts of the two sessions devoted to the activity are analysed through discourse analysis. The results suggest that students use a variety of information sources throughout the small and large group discussions, while focusing on specific criteria as the discussion progresses.

Bibliographic References

  • Acar, O., Turkmen, L. y Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio‐scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902991805
  • Casas-Quiroga, L. y Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2020). Epistemic operations performed by high school students in an argumentation and decision-making context: Setrocia’s alimentary emergency. International Journal of Science Education, 42(16), 2653-2673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1824300
  • Berland, L. K., y Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  • Berland, L. K. y Reiser, B. J. (2010). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
  • Chin, C. y Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101
  • Christodoulou, A. y Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1275-1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166
  • Clark, D. B. y Sampson, V. (2007). Personally seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
  • Delgado Pérez, T., Fortes Román, F. J., Cebrián-Robles, D. y Hierrezuelo-Osorio, J. M. (2020). El juego de rol como estrategia didáctica para la práctica de la argumentación en un contexto socio-científico con estudiantes de ciencias. V Simposio Internacional de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, SIEC 2020.
  • Eilks, I., Prins, G. T. y Lazarowitz, R. (2013). How to organize the chemistry classroom in a student-active mode. En I. Eilks y A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry – a studybook (pp. 183-212). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_7
  • Ellis, J. D., Sebranek, J. G. y Sneed, J. (2004). Iowa high school students’ perceptions of food safety. Food Protection Trends, 24, 239-245.
  • Ergönül, B. (2013). Consumer awareness and perception to food safety: A consumer analysis. Food Control, 32(2), 461-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.01.018
  • García-Barrera, A. (2015). Importancia de la competencia argumentativa en el ámbito educativo: una propuesta para su enseñanza a través del role playing online. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 45. https://doi.org/10.6018/red/45/alba
  • Gee, J. P. y Handford, M. (2012). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Nueva York: Routledge.
  • Holbrook J. y Ranikmae M. (2016). Context-based teaching and socio-scientific issues. En K. S. Taber y B. Akpan (Eds.), Science Education: an international course companion (pp. 279-294). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_21
  • Howes, E. y Cruz, B. (2009). Role-playing in science education: An effective strategy for developing multiple perspectives. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174721
  • Iordanou, K. y Kuhn, D. (2020). Contemplating the opposition: Does a personal touch matter? Discourse Processes, 57(4), 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1701918
  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. y Erduran, S. (2007) Argumentation in science education: An overview. En S. Erduran y M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
  • National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  • Norton, D. M. y Braden, C. R. (2007). Foodborne Listeriosis. En E. T. Ryser y E. H. Marth (Eds.), Listeria, Listeriosis and Food Safety (pp. 323-374). Nueva York, NY: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420015188-17
  • Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación/Organización Mundial de la Salud (FAO/OMS) (2011). Guía FAO/OMS para la aplicación de principios y procedimientos de análisis de riesgos en situaciones de emergencia relativas a la inocuidad de los alimentos. Roma: FAO/OMS.
  • Palma-Jiménez, M., Cebrián-Robles, D. y Blanco-López, Á. (2020). El juego de rol como recurso didáctico para trabajar la argumentación científica en un contexto CTS: percepciones del profesorado en formación inicial de Educación Infantil. Indagatio Didactica, 12(4), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.34624/id.v12i4.21691
  • Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socioscientific decision-making situations. Science Education, 96, 600-630. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21016
  • Roberts, D. A. y Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy and science education. En N. G. Lederman y S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 545-558). Nueva York, NY: Routledge.
  • Ryu, S. y Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
  • Sadler, T. D. (2009). Socioscientific issues in science education: labels, reasoning and transfer. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 4(3), 697-703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9133-x
  • Simmoneaux, M. (2001). Role play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016076
  • Solís, M. (2012). Role playing como herramienta de enseñanza. Reflexión Académica en Diseño y Comunicación, 21, 70-71.
  • Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from start to finish. Nueva York, NY: The Guildford Press.
  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: research and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Zohar, A. y Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
Data source: Dialnet