Search

As we begin the third decade of the twenty-first century, argument and debate are not habitual practices of university science education. This can be explained by the hegemony of instructor-centered traditional approaches in many of these practices. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only pushed university education online but also seems to provide an unforeseen opportunity to develop deep educational transformations. Here, we report on the case of a university online science course that, because of the COVID-19 crisis, used online verbal argumentative interaction (OVAI) to provide students with explicit opportunities to co-construct reason-based and/or evidence-based arguments and counterarguments in an undergraduate-centered science learning environment. The written arguments and counterarguments co-constructed by forty students (20 females and 20 males, 19-24 years old) during OVAI sessions were analyzed to determine their quality. Also, students' opinions about the use of OVAI in times of COVID-19 were documented. The results indicate that the students co-constructed high-quality arguments and counterarguments in the OVAI sessions. Most importantly, participants showed positive impressions about the use of OVAI in university online science education. The outcomes carry important educational implications considering the growing university online science courses in the pandemic and post-pandemic eras.

This article presents a literature review of argumentation research in sciences, it is motivated by the idea that recent advances in argumentation studies indicate that the topic of argumentation should be included in the curriculum and in science teachers’ preservice training. Firstly, some theoretical and practical benefits and developments of argumentation in sciences are exposed, localizing the field with Didactic of Science. Secondly, the intentions of researches which have explored ways for including argumentation in science preservice teachers training are described. Thirdly, the literature is analyzed in order to elucidate the implications of this localization. Finally, recommendations for the inclusion of argumentation in science preservice teachers’ training are proposed.

In theory, there is broad agreement among science education stakeholders that supporting the achievement of scientific literacy is crucial for citizens to make informed and critical decisions about socioscientific issues (SSI). Likewise, it is widely held that argumentation is an important component of scientific literacy. In practice, however, university science courses give undergraduates limited opportunities to strengthen their argumentation skills. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence to explore the use of drama to enrich students' argumentation about genetically modified (GM) foods. This study was conducted in Colombia where an eventual banning of GM crops is the subject of discussion in Congress. Data include the oral and written arguments produced by seventy-five students (55 females and 20 males, 18-24 years old) in a university science course during a complete drama-based teaching-learning sequence. Coding of students' responses to open-ended questions, Cohen's d effect size, and chi-square tests were performed. The outcomes suggest that the sequence effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to enrich their GM food argumentation, producing arguments about their viewpoints and anticipating counterarguments. The evidence provided in this study contributes to the exploration of an emergent possibility in science education, namely, the use of drama as a platform for enriching students' argumentation about SSI.

Socio-scientific argumentation (SSA) is increasingly being recognized as a key aspect of scientific literacy. Much of the reason for this is that this skill is crucial for helping students to become active participants in twenty-first-century democratic societies in which the construction of informed and critical views of socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change, COVID-19 vaccination, genetic testing) plays a fundamental role. The problem is that instructors rarely give students explicit and research-based opportunities to enrich their SSA skills. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide evidence that drama can be used as a platform to enrich argumentation in genetic testing. The data were derived from the written responses and the audio recordings of seventy-six university students (37 females and 39 males, 16-29 years old) in Colombia during a complete drama-based teaching-learning sequence (TLS) supervised by the same instructor. The outcomes suggest that the sequence can be used to enrich argumentation in genetic testing as it effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to produce both arguments and counterarguments about the controversy whether the use of genetic tests among people should be encouraged. This study contributes to the literature on SSA in science education by demonstrating that drama is a promising tool to enhance argumentation about science-based social issues.

Purpose: Seeking online bilingual scientific information is a key aspect of bilingual scientific Web literacy -- abilities to engage critically with science on the Web using two languages. This study aims to determine whether factors such as age, education major, gender and type of school attended at secondary level (monolingual, bilingual, trilingual) influence undergraduates' ability to search online Spanish-English bilingual scientific information. Design/methodology/approach: The participants in this study were 60 students (43 females and 17 males, 18-25 years old) enrolled in a university bilingual science course at a high-ranked Colombian university. They were asked to complete two tasks in which they had to seek online scientific information in Spanish and in English and post their responses on the Web application, Padlet® (padlet.com). Findings: Results indicate that students' gender and age influence their academic performance in both tasks and level of originality in using information obtained via the Web, respectively. Moreover, the "scientific journal" was the top source of online information from which participants sought most information to complete both tasks. Originality/value: People are becoming increasingly accustomed to seeking and sharing online scientific information to support points of view and make decisions. However, it is not known which factors influence students' ability to seek online first language-English bilingual scientific information in countries where English is the second or foreign language.

The identification and the evaluation of arguments are fundamental elements of critical thinking. However, the explicit promotion of these elements is virtually absent from university science courses. Much of the reason for this is that in most universities, across nearly all disciplines, instructors are required to see the conceptual content coverage of the syllabus as a priority. Moreover, lack of preparation and the fact that critical thinking activities are time-consuming rapidly reduce the interest of many instructors to include them in their courses. Here, we describe the use of a dialogue-based critical thinking classroom scenario (CTCS). The study used a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative analyses of questionnaire responses. One hundred and seventeen undergraduates (73 females; 44 males; ages 16-24 years), enrolled in an introductory science course in Colombia, were asked to identify and evaluate arguments regarding a dialogue between two scientists who explore the controversial question of whether or not the concept of race is applicable to humans. It was found that the dialogue-based CTCS provided students with opportunities to identify and evaluate arguments both for and against the question and to make informed decisions about whether or not the concept of race in humans is biologically meaningful. Moreover, analyses of responses to closed-ended and open-ended questions revealed that more than half the participants were able to evaluate arguments in a fair-minded way. Practical implications for the cultivation of critical thinking skills in higher education and further research are discussed.

Recent studies show that English as the medium of instruction seems impractical and ineffective in countries where English is the second or foreign language. The situation becomes even more complicated because of students' resistance to an English-only format. In response to this, universities around the world also offer first language-English bilingual courses. Although bilingual courses are a legitimate opportunity to achieve internationalization, very little is known about bilingual teaching practices (BTPs) and the instructors' espoused beliefs about this type of practice. In this cross-sectional study, the twenty-eight-item questionnaire created by Archila and Truscott de Mejía (2020a) was adapted to explore the practices and espoused beliefs of three hundred eleven instructors from twelve schools at a Colombian university. Findings indicate that instructors used to include some BTPs in their courses. Nonetheless, there was evidence that they needed more preparation and support for the creation, implementation, and assessment of this type of practice. Most importantly, our results support the claim that bi/multilingual higher education policies should respond to the nature of each discipline. Relevant policy implications are discussed in light of the call of some authors to move towards university first language-English bilingual courses.

In many higher education institutions in countries where English is the second or foreign language; English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English-medium instruction (EMI), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), and first language-English bilingual modules are attracting interest because of their potential to contribute to the internationalization of higher education. However, it is still not very clear whether students' monolingual, bilingual, or trilingual abilities really influence their academic performance in these modules. This study aims to determine if there is a relationship between participants' academic performance and their type of school attended at secondary level (monolingual, bilingual, trilingual) or age. The total sample of this correlational research was 177 undergraduates (105 females and 72 males, 15-30 years old) who took a university Spanish-English bilingual Biology module at a prestigious Colombian university. Here, we report the results obtained on 2.5 years of data generated by students' quizzes and exams. Independent t-tests showed that the grades obtained in quizzes and exams by the undergraduates who attended monolingual schools at secondary level were slightly lower than those of the university students who attended bilingual or trilingual schools, but there were no statistical differences between them.

The rise in university bilingual science courses is explained by a certain phenomenon, the internationalization of higher education. Bilingual Argument Mapping (BAM) -- the ability to construct argument maps using two languages -- is a key aspect of bilingual scientific literacy. An argument map is a visual representation of argument structure. The problem is that little is known about how to foster BAM in this type of course. The goal of this study was to explore the possibility of using formal and informal formative assessment (FIFA) -- a type of assessment for learning in which feedback is both preplanned and instantaneous --, to support undergraduates' BAM. The data consist of the bilingual argument maps constructed by forty-four students (27 females and 17 males, 18-23 years old) in Colombia during a university Spanish-English bilingual science course. Results indicate that FIFA helped the participants' creation of valid and coherent argument maps in Spanish, in English and in a hybrid version using code-switching as response to argumentative questions related to the scientific topics covered in the course. The potential contributions of FIFA and its implications are discussed in light of research and theory of bilingual science education.

As we begin the third decade of the twenty-first century, in countries where English is the second or foreign language, the goal of internationalization is causing a rise in university first language-English bilingual science courses. Even though bilingual written scientific argumentation (BWSA)--a twenty-first-century skill--is an essential aspect of bilingual scientific literacy (BSL), little is known about how to promote this skill in this type of courses. The purpose of this study was to provide research evidence that formal formative assessment (FFA) could be a possibility for promoting BWSA among university students. A FFA-based pedagogical strategy involving preplanned feedback and peer critique was implemented with fifty-seven students (32 females and 25 males, 16-24 years old) in Colombia during a university Spanish-English bilingual science course. The data were derived from undergraduate students' written productions in Spanish and in English. The results demonstrated that the pedagogical strategy can be useful for providing students with explicit opportunities to enrich their BWSA. This study contributes to the construction of research-based bilingual practices aimed at legitimating BSL and BWSA in university bilingual science courses. Implications for higher education institutions are discussed.

Bilingual scientific literacy (BSL) is one of the educational domains gaining prominence in twenty-first century societies. University bilingual science courses are legitimate and desirable scenarios for the promotion of bilingual written scientific argumentation (BWSA) as part of BSL. Recent studies indicate that the use of 'logical connectors' (LCs) or 'linking words' is a critical aspect of BWSA. The problem is that very little evidence is available on how to enrich university students' use of LCs in BWSA. The goal of this study was to determine how a formative assessment-based pedagogical strategy (FAPS) could help students enrich the use of LCs. We examined the BWSA produced by 70 students (34 females and 36 males, 15-27 years old) in Colombia during a university Spanish-English bilingual science course. The findings show that the strategy provided participants with opportunities to enrich the use of LCs in their written argumentation in Spanish and in English. Finally, the potential implications for university bilingual education are discussed.

Recent studies show that the exploration of ways to involve students in effective bi/multilingual science education is gaining attention at all educational levels. Introducing students to the construction of bilingual scientific argument maps--visual representations of scientific argument structure using two languages--contributes to the quality of bilingual science education as they are a key aspect of bilingual scientific literacy; however, very little is known about how to promote the construction of these maps in bilingual science courses. Here we provide evidence for the claim that peer feedback and instructor feedback can be integrated to support the construction of bilingual scientific argument maps. A pedagogical strategy that integrates both peer feedback and instructor feedback was implemented in a university bilingual science course with 29 students (23 females and 6 males, 18-24 years-old) in Colombia. Results show that the strategy effectively supported the construction of scientific argument maps in Spanish and English. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

COVID-19 literacy, induced by the coronavirus disease (2019), is characterized as the understanding of COVID-19 as well as informed decisions based upon this understanding. This type of literacy is closely related to health literacy, scientific literacy, and scientific media literacy. It may be obvious to say that COVID-19 literacy is a key factor for governments to effectively manage the COVID-19 transition. However, lack of literature exists about COVID-19 literacy among university students. Therefore, the current study aimed to determine the COVID-19 literacy level among 4168 students from a Colombian university. The data were derived from students' responses to a 25-item anonymous online self-reporting questionnaire. We found that 21-25-year age group, graduate students, students enrolled prior to 2015, and medical students had a significantly higher mean score. Moreover, the Internet (86.8%) was the most popular source of information from which participants gained most information regarding COVID-19. Furthermore, 58.5% of the participants considered health workers as a source that can provide accurate information. Most importantly, the findings reveal the students' knowledge about (1) the role of an eventual process of vaccination, (2) the test currently used as diagnostic for COVID-19, and (3) the fatality rate, three aspects of COVID-19 literacy that deserve more attention. The findings provide a useful basis for the formulation of policies and concrete actions in improving COVID-19 literacy.

A well-informed populace is vitally important for the proper functioning of democracy. Media news articles constitute an essential means by which the public comes into contact with scientific issues. However, not all of the scientific information presented in news articles is trustworthy or accurate. Naturally, the situation becomes more complicated because most university science departments spend little empirical effort considering how to foster undergraduates' scientific media literacy (SML). This article discusses the effect of a teaching-learning sequence (TLS) in (1) providing undergraduates with opportunities to explicitly reflect on the ways in which news articles promote the public (mis)understanding of science and (2) engaging them in argumentative classroom interactions (such as debates). It examines the written and oral arguments produced by 115 undergraduates (62 females and 53 males, 17-23 years old) in Colombia during a complete TLS supervised by the same instructor. The data used in this analysis were collected from students' written responses and audio recordings. The findings suggest that the TLS can be a good start to show undergraduates some of the different ways in which news articles promote the public (mis)understanding of science and, thus, enrich their SML. The study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of the SML curriculum for higher education.

Paragonimiasis is an illness that involves both humans and animals. It is caused by parasites from the genus "Paragonimus" (Trematoda: Troglotrematidae). The illness is endemic to tropical and subtropical countries in Asia, Africa, and America, with different species being responsible in different areas. In Colombia, members of the Indigenous Embera community become infected when they eat raw crustaceans which contain the metacercarian form of the parasite, which lives in the lungs, leading to hemoptysis (bloodstained phlegm in the lungs). Eating raw crustaceans is part of the Embera traditions and beliefs. This article describes the effect of a teaching-learning sequence (TLS) based on a controversy about health, biology, and indigenous knowledge (IK) in promoting undergraduates' awareness of the importance of respecting the traditions and beliefs of indigenous communities. It examines the written and oral arguments produced by 120 university students (59 females and 61 males, 16-28 years old) in Colombia during a complete TLS supervised by the same instructor. The data used in this analysis were derived from students' written responses and audio recordings. The first aim of this study was to provide evidence that a controversial issue combining health, biology, and IK could be used to promote students' awareness of the importance of respecting the traditions and beliefs of indigenous communities. The second objective was to assess the effectiveness of the TLS to engage students in argumentative classroom interactions (such as debates) relating to a controversial issue. The findings show that this issue can be useful for promoting undergraduates' awareness of the importance of respecting the traditions and beliefs of indigenous communities.

A key goal of university bilingual science courses is to enrich undergraduates' bilingual scientific literacy (BSL). However, very little is known about how to foster BSL. This study aimed to provide research evidence to explore the possibility that BSL can be promoted by using bilingual written argumentation when Socrative® is treated as an immersive participation tool. To test our hypothesis, we intervened a university Spanish-English bilingual Biology course. Fifty-two undergraduates (25 females and 27 males, 16-25 years old) were: (1) presented with argumentative questions requiring application of concepts covered in lectures, (2) asked to write a Spanish-English bilingual argumentative paragraph individually, and (3) polled for the most reasonable answer. A histogram of class responses was displayed, and undergraduates were encouraged to: (4) discuss the question in pairs, (5) write a Spanish-English bilingual argumentative paragraph in pairs, and (6) be polled for the most reasonable answer. Undergraduates' paragraphs were the subject of peer critique and useful feedback throughout the Spanish-English bilingual science course. The findings suggest significant benefits for providing undergraduates with opportunities and support to written argumentation in both English and Spanish. The outcomes of this study carry important policy implications in light of the growing university bilingual practices around the world.

English dominates as an international language for science and research. Consequently, this is the most widely used language in university bilingual (e.g. Spanish-English, Chinese-English, Swedish-English) science courses around the world. However, very little is known about how to foster bilingual scientific writing in these types of courses. This article describes the effect of a systematic and purposeful code-switching pedagogical strategy in fostering undergraduates' bilingual scientific writing. Participants were 76 students (41 female and 35 male, 17-23 years old) enrolled in a university bilingual (Spanish-English) Biology course in Colombia. The data used in this analysis were derived from students' argumentative written productions, and audio and video recordings. The findings show that this systematic and purposeful code-switching pedagogical strategy was not only a useful basis for promoting students' bilingual scientific writing but also a valuable way for students to gain confidence in their foreign language written skills.

University bilingual science courses are on the rise because of the internationalisation of higher education. These courses are legitimate and desirable scenarios for the promotion of bilingual written scientific argumentation (BWSA) as part of bilingual scientific literacy. The problem is that very little evidence is available on how to foster university student BWSA in courses where the English (foreign language) level of the undergraduates is variable. The goal of this study was to provide evidence that collaborative learning (CL) can be used to promote BWSA in contexts where students with different levels of English proficiency study together. We examined the Spanish-English bilingual written argumentation produced by 56 undergraduates (30 females and 26 males, 16-30 years old) in Colombia during a university Spanish-English bilingual science course where the English (foreign language) level of the students was variable. The data used in this analysis was derived from students' written responses and audio recordings. The findings show that CL can contribute to BWSA as well as to specific CL skills (e.g. interdependence, individual accountability, interaction) which are important for social life. Educational implications for higher education are discussed.

Contrary to the situation at primary, middle, and secondary school levels, university science courses provide students with very few opportunities to reflect upon the nature of science (NOS). The first goal of this study was to provide evidence that the co-construction of evolutionary trees, an important component of university biology education, can be used as a platform to introduce undergraduates to some aspects of NOS, such as the importance of (1) hypothesis, (2) human creativity, and (3) cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge. The second goal was to provide evidence that this approach could be used without sacrificing student mastery of the drawing of phylogenetic trees in a scientific and reasonable way. The data was derived from 68 undergraduates' (39 females and 29 males, 17-22 years old) written responses and audio and video recordings in a university biology course in Colombia. The findings show that the co-construction of phylogenetic trees can offer potential contributions to the introduction of undergraduates to some aspects of NOS and the promotion of their understanding of these visual representations. This study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of a NOS curriculum for higher education.

The theory of evolution is the backbone of the biological sciences. Arguably, this is the reason why evolution education is an extensively investigated issue in several countries around the world. Little is known, however, about the views of university students in Colombia. Here, we report on 7 years of data generated by a three-question anonymous survey to identify Colombian university students' views about evolution and creationism. We hypothesized that university students' views may be related to their major and/or age. In total, 1132 students (ages 16-23 years) from different majors at a private university in Bogotá were surveyed. Our findings showed that (1) 66% of the university students held the view that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and that God had no part in this process, (2) 85% of university students believed that humans have developed from other species, (3) 84% of university students held the view that life on Earth has evolved over time through natural selection, and (4) the chi-square analyses of the responses to the three-question survey revealed that university students' views about evolution and creationism were not related to their major and/or age. Our findings reinforce the key role of students' views, which should be valued and integrated into evolution education practice.

The Covid-19 pandemic is the reason why humanity is paying more attention to the importance of regular and rigorous handwashing. Interestingly, in the nineteenth century, regular and rigorous handwashing was a key (and controversial) solution proposed by the Hungarian obstetrician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis to cut drastically cases of puerperal fever. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence that the case of Semmelweis and puerperal fever--a crucial historical scientific controversy--can be used as a springboard to promote university student argumentation. Our study was inspired by the fact that the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) stressed that more efforts and resources should be invested in promoting argumentation as an essential component for scientifically literate citizens in twenty-first century societies. However, nowadays, argument and debate are virtually absent from university science education. The data was derived from 124 undergraduates' (64 females and 60 males, 15-30 years old) written responses and audio and video recordings in a university biology course in Colombia. The findings show that the articulation of this historical controversy with decision-making, small-group debate, and whole-class debate activities can be useful for promoting undergraduates' argumentation. This study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of an argumentation curriculum for higher education.

Bilingual practices in university science courses are on the rise because of the internationalization of higher education. However, little is known about bilingual science teaching practices (BTP) of professors and their beliefs about this type of practice. In this exploratory study, a questionnaire was designed, adapted and applied to explore the BTPs of professors and their espoused beliefs about bilingual practices in university science courses in a Colombian university. The participants were 20 science professors who were asked to complete a twenty eight-item questionnaire. Findings indicate that a high number of participants espoused positive beliefs about the key role of bilingualism and English in undergraduate courses in the construction of an international academic view of science. Nevertheless, their BTPs were limited and they did not take advantage of bilingualism to enrich undergraduates' conceptual knowledge, bilingual repertoires, and scientific skills. Outcomes highlight the need to help professors understand the potential of bilingualism as a resource in the science classroom. This study also suggests that bilingual science professors' practices and beliefs should be considered as crucial elements in the building of research-based policies aimed at legitimating bilingual practices in university science courses.

Internationalization of university curricula is the main reason why the number of bilingual teaching practices (BTPs) in university courses is on the rise around the world. This article reports the perceptions of this type of practice from 70 science students (43 females and 27 males, 17-24 years old) from a Colombian university. A questionnaire was designed, adapted and applied specifically for this investigation. Three major findings were arrived at: (a) a significant percentage of participants perceived that "readings in English" is the most common BTP assigned by their Biology and/or Microbiology course professors. However, a high number of participants perceived that "lectures conducted in English," "written tasks," and "oral presentations" in English were not very common in their Biology and/or Microbiology courses. (b) An "Online translator" (e.g., Google Translate™) is the most common bilingual science study technique (BSST) used by participants, and (c) the majority of participants perceived that the English language plays a key role in the professional development of biologists and microbiologists. Educational implications are discussed.

Formative assessment, bilingualism, and argumentation when combined can enrich bilingual scientific literacy. However, argumentation receives little attention in the practice of bilingual science education. This article describes the effect of a formative assessment-based pedagogical strategy in promoting university students' argumentation. It examines the written and oral arguments produced by 54 undergraduates (28 females and 26 males, 16-21 years old) in Colombia during a university bilingual (Spanish-English) science course. The data used in this analysis was derived from students' written responses, and audio and video recordings. The first goal of this study was to determine how this teaching strategy could help students increase the use of English as a means of communication in argumentation in science. The second goal was to establish the potential of the strategy to engage students in argumentative classroom interactions as an essential part of formative assessment. The findings show that the strategy provided participants with opportunities to write their argumentation in Spanish, in English and in a hybrid version using code-switching. Educational implications for higher education are discussed.

The internationalisation of higher education as well as the emergence of evidence for the claim that bi/multilingualism in science should be the norm, not just an option, are conditions that explain the rise in university bilingual science courses. Thus far, however, little is known about how to foster bilingual scientific argumentation in this type of course. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence that the creation of bilingual scientific argument podcasts (BSAP) – a form of podcast where two languages are used to communicate elements of scientific argument structure (e.g. argument, counterargument, rebuttal) – can be used as a springboard to foster undergraduate bilingual scientific argumentation. The data was derived from scripts of the podcast episodes produced by twenty-seven students (19 females and 8 males, 19–25 years old) during a university Spanish-English bilingual science course taught within a formative assessment environment. Results indicate that student-created BSAP effectively enriched participants' skills to produce (counter) arguments and rebuttals in Spanish (g = 0.79) and in English (g = 1.20). Moreover, findings suggest that undergraduates benefited from formative assessment practices such as instructor feedback and peer feedback. Implications related to bilingual science education practices and supporting students' development of bilingual scientific argumentation within formative assessment environments are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to use drama as a springboard for promoting argumentation among 91 first-semester undergraduate medical students (56 females and 35 males, 16-30 years old) in Colombia during a complete teaching-learning sequence (TLS) supervised by the same teacher. The drama used was the play "Should've," written by Nobel laureate Roald Hoffmann. The data was derived from students' written responses, audio and video recordings, and written field notes. This investigation provides evidence that an approach combining drama and argumentation could increase students' awareness of the relevance of ethics in science as one of the features of science (FOS). The findings show that the play "Should've" can be useful for promoting students' argumentation and is also appropriate for medical students. Future studies could include other science disciplines (e.g., astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, ecology, physics); students of other ages; and other plays and experiments in other parts of the world.

This paper addresses the importance of evaluating evidence for enriching critical thinking in the chemistry classroom. The purpose of the study was to examine the usefulness of a historical chemical controversy in promoting students' assessment of evidence. The investigation was conducted in a high school in Melun, France. 63 participants (24 females and 39 males aged 16-17 years) evaluated evidence relating to the polemical question of who discovered oxygen, with Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1742-1786), Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), and Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier (1743-1794) being possible contenders. This evidence was provided by the play "Oxygen", written by Carl Djerassi and Nobel laureate Roald Hoffmann (2001a), and was classified as either experimentation in science or scientific communication. The findings indicate that this historical chemical controversy helped to raise the students' awareness of the essential role of evidence evaluation in the advancement of chemistry. Furthermore, they reveal that the participants evaluated "easier" evidence relating to experimentation in science rather than evidence relating to scientific communication. The main conclusion drawn from this study is that historical chemical controversies can enhance learners' assessment of evidence.

This article describes the effect of a teaching-learning sequence (TLS) based on the discovery of oxygen in promoting students' argumentation. It examines the written and oral arguments produced by 63 high school students (24 females and 39 males, 16-17 years old) in France during a complete TLS supervised by the same teacher. The data used in this analysis was derived from students' written responses, audio and video recordings, and written field notes. The first goal of this investigation was to provide evidence that an approach combining history and philosophy of science and argumentation could increase students' awareness of the relevance of experimentation and communication to scientific progress. The second goal was to assess the effectiveness of the TLS to engage students in argumentative classroom interactions (such as debates) relating to the discovery of oxygen at the end of the 18th century. The findings show that this historical case can be useful for promoting students' argumentation and is also appropriate for high school students. Future research should include students of other ages, other historical episodes and experiences in other parts of the world.

This paper addresses the importance of argumentation in science education. A research project was done in order to know how a group of pre-service chemistry teachers has been prepared to promote students' argumentation. A Chemistry degree studies plan from a Colombian university was surveyed, and 18 future teachers' representations about argumentation were analyzed. Results indicate argumentation is not an explicit priority for the pre-service chemistry teachers training program studied. Additionally, future teachers showed consciousness about the necessity of being prepared to engage students successfully in argumentative activities. Nonetheless, pre-service chemistry teachers manifest not to know how to design multiple methodologies to improve argumentation. Therefore, one of the multiple proposals of solution could be the incorporation of a module that allows pre-service chemistry teachers to build their own strategies to promote argumentation.