Contra-argumentos modificam argumentos? O caso do júri simulado sobre o Marco Legal do Saneamento

Abstract

Several authors of Science Didactics defend the inclusion of argumentation in scientific education due to its potential, such as understanding the nature of science and the development of critical thinking and communicative skills. From a dialogical and dialectical perspective, argumentation is a discursive activity characterized by the defense of points of view and consideration of different perspectives. The argumentative discursive organization that provides for the negotiation and justification of points of view gives argumentation an epistemic potential (construction of knowledge) and a metacognitive potential (reflection on one's proper thoughts). From this perspective, debate situations are indicated as argumentative practices relevant to teaching. One didactic strategy capable of fomented debate is the mock jury (or mock trial), a particular case of role-play game that aims to discuss a controversial topic. However, there are few studies in the literature that address the relationships between the simulated jury in Science Teaching and argumentation. This work proposes a case study on the mock jury strategy based on the dialogical and dialectical perspective of argumentation. Our general objective is to analyze the process of constructing knowledge claims based on arguments and counterarguments produced in guided simulated jury activities and students' perception of this process in a teaching context. As a controversial topic, the New Legal Framework for Basic Sanitation, Federal Law No. 14,026/2020, was chosen due to the controversies involved in its approval and implementation. To achieve the objective proposed, activities were developed and organized in the stages of preparation, implementation, and evaluation of the simulated jury, applied in five meetings in the training meetings of participants in the Pedagogical Residency Program – Chemistry Subproject of UFRN (CAAE - Certificate of Presentation of Ethical Appreciation 57847622.4.0000.5537). Data was collected using audio recordings of the meetings, besides written materials produced by students in the three stages (questionnaires, guided scripts, evaluation forms, and field diary). The data were analyzed using an analytical tool by Veneu, Ferraz, and Rezende (2015) based on Bakthinian elements. The results indicate that the constructing knowledge process statements in guided simulated jury activities occurred in the three stages of the research based on metacognitive processes and thinking self-regulation and being influenced by the evaluative relationships established by the participants with the perspectives. We can affirm that dialectical and dialogical argumentation can make relevant contributions to scientific education, just as the simulated jury can be a tool for instrumentalizing this argumentative perspective.