Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 6 No. 11 (2015)
Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad CTS

Artículos

Succession of earthquakes in the Ebro Delta. A sequence to research pupils’ ideas and the prac tice of using evidence

https://doi.org/10.19053/22160159.3574

Published 2015-01-05

  • Blanca Puig Mauriz
    • ,
  • Jorge José Pérez Maceira
    • ,
  • Santiago Montero Vilar

Blanca Puig Mauriz
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela

Jorge José Pérez Maceira
EPAPU Río Lérez

Santiago Montero Vilar
Instituto IES Ponte Caldelas, Consellería de Educación, Xunta de Galicia

Abstract

A “socially live” issue related to Geology is dealt with: the controversy surrounding the succession of earthquakes in the Ebro Delta (Spain). This article examines both students’ ideas about earthquakes and the practice of using evidence in the context of choosing a causal explanation of Delta’s earthquakes. The study is part of the researches on reasoning about socioscientific issues in Geology. Three groups are involved: one belonging to CSE 4th grade (students aged from 16 to 17) and two to baccalaureate 1st grade (aged from 17 to 18). The results indicate that most of students understand an earthquake as a common phenomenon, and relate it exclusively to the tectonics plates. Regarding the controversy of Ebro Delta most choose as the cause of earthquakes the combination of natural causes and human activity, and focus on building an explanation, rather than justify their choice based on evidence.

Keywords

“socially live” issues, geology, earthquakes, previous ideas, reasoning, use of evidence

PDF (Español) HTML (Español)

References

  1. ALFARO, P. (2008). ‘Recursos para un estudio contextualizado de los terremotos’.
  2. Alambique. Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales [(55) 20-31].
  3. ALFARO, P.; GONZÁLEZ, M.; BRUSI, D.; LÓPEZ MARTÍN, J. A.; MARTÍNEZ DÍAZ, J. J.; GARCÍA MAYORDOMO, J.; BENITO, B.; MURPHY, P.; NÁJERA, A.; VILLALBA, R. & JÓDAR, F. (2012). ‘Lecciones aprendidas del terremoto de Lorca de 2011’. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra [19 (3) 123-132].
  4. CARREÑO, E., MARTÍNEZ, J. M. & CANTAVELLA, J. V. (2013). ‘La actividad sísmica en el Golfo de Valencia’. Informe del Instituto Geográfico Nacional [17 de diciembre de 2013].
  5. DÍAZ, J. (2011). ‘Buscando terremotos desde el aula’. Enseñanza de las ciencias de la tierra [19 (3) 343-347].
  6. DOMÈNECH-CASAL & DÍAZ-CUSI (2012). ‘Sacudiendo el aula. Una experiencia sísmica de colaboración entre profesores y divulgadores’. Alambique. Didáctica de las ciencias experimentales [(72)].
  7. EVAGOROU, M. & OSBORNE, J. (2013). ‘Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching [50 (2) 209-237].
  8. GEE, J. P. (2011). How to discourse analysis: a toolkit. New York: Routdledge.
  9. GONZÁLEZ, M. & ALFARO, P. (2011). ‘Terremotos: un recurso educativo imprescindible’. Enseñanza de las ciencias de la tierra [19 (3) 242-244].
  10. GONZÁLEZ, M.; ALFARO, P. y BRUSI, D. (2011). ‘Los terremotos “mediáticos” como recurso educativo’. Enseñanza de ciencias de la tierra [19 (3), 330-342].
  11. HODSON, D. (2011). Looking to the Future. Building a Curriculum for Social Activism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  12. JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. (2010). 10 ideas clave. Competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Barcelona: Graó.
  13. JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. & FEDERICO-AGRASO, M. (2009). ‘Justification and persuasion about cloning: Arguments in Hwang’s paper and journalistic reported versions’. Research in Science Education [39 (3) 331-347].
  14. JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. & ERDURAN, S. (2008). ‘Argumentation in science education: An overview’. S JIMÉNEZ ALEIXANDRE, M. P. & ERDURAN, S. [ed.] ‘Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research’ (3-28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  15. KELLY, G. J. (2008a). ‘Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice’. DUSCHL, R. A. & GRANDY, R. E. [ed.] Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (99-117). Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  16. KERLIN, S. C; MCDONALD, S. P. & KELLY, G. (2010). ‘Complexity of secondary scientific data sources and students’ argumentative discourse’. International Journal of Science Education [32 (9) 1207-1225].
  17. KING, C. J. H. (2010). ‘An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales’. International Journal of Science Education [32 (5) 565-601].
  18. KUHN, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review [(62), 155- 178].
  19. LEGARDEZ, A. & SIMONNEAUX, L. (2006). L’école à l’épreuve de l’actualité. Enseigner des questions vives. Paris: ESF.
  20. MARTINS, I. (2013). ‘La vinculación entre educación científica y sociedad: Las cuestiones socialmente vivas’. [Charla plenaria en el Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias, 10 de septiembre de 2013, Girona].
  21. MOLINATTI, G.; GIRAULT & HAMMOND, C. (2010). ‘High School Students Debate the Use of Embryonic Stem Cells: The influence of context on decision making’. International Journal of Science Education [32 (16) 2235-2251].
  22. PEDRINACI, E. (2010). ‘Catástrofes y sostenibilidad: algunas ideas para el aula.’ Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias [Nº. extraordinario 374-387].
  23. PEDRINACI, E. (2012). ‘Alfabetización en Ciencias de la Tierra, una propuesta necesaria’. Enseñanza de las ciencias de la tierra: Revista de la Asociación Española para la Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra [20 (2) 133-140].
  24. PUIG, B.; BRAVO-TORIJA, B. & JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE (2012). Argumentación en el aula: dos unidades didácticas. Santiago de Compostela: Danú. Proyecto S-TEAM [hay versión en gallego, castellano e inglés].
  25. SADLER, T. & DONNELLY, L. A. (2006). ‘Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content-knowledge and morality’. International Journal of Science Education [28, 1463-1488].
  26. SAMPSON, V. & BLANCHARD, M. (2012). ‘Science Teachers and
  27. Science Argumentation: Trends in Views and Practice’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching [49 (9) 1122-1148].
  28. SANDOVAL, W. (2003). ‘Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations’. The Journal of the Learning Sciences [12 (1) 5-51].
  29. SAVASCI, F. (2011). ‘Make an earthquake: ground shaking!’ Science Activities:Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas [48 (2) 67-64].
  30. SHARP, J. G.; MACKINTOSH, M. A. P. & SEEDHOUSE, P. (1995). ‘Some comments on children’s ideas about earth structure, volcanoes, earthquakes and plates’. Teaching Earth Sciences [20 (1), 28-30].
  31. SIMONNEAUX, L. (2001). ‘Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis’. International Journal of Science Education [23 (9) 903-927].
  32. SIMONNEAUX, L. & SIMONNEAUX, J. (2009). ‘Students’ socio-scientific reasoning concontroversies from the viewpoint of Education for Sustainable Development’. Cultural Studies in Science Education [(4) 657-687].
  33. TIBERGHIEN, A. (2008). ‘Foreword. Argumentation in science education: An overview’. JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. & ERDURAN, S. [ed.] Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (ix-vx).Dordrecht: Springer.
  34. YIN, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods [3.ª ed.] SAGE Publications.
  35. ZOBACK, M. D. & GORELICK, S. M. (2012). ‘Earthquake triggering and largescale geologic storage of carbon dioxide’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences de EEUU [109 (26) 10164-10168].

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

<< < 6 7 8 9 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.