Publication:
Comprensión de situaciones problema y formulación de preguntas en biología evolutiva : un estudio comparativo entre expertos y aprendices

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorLarreamendy-Joerns, Jorge F.
dc.contributor.authorTascón, Ricardo
dc.contributor.authorSandino, Juan Carlos
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-12T22:18:02Z
dc.date.available2023-12-12T22:18:02Z
dc.date.issued2001-03
dc.description1 documento
dc.description.abstractEl conocimiento científico y el desarrollo de la tecnología han transformado de manera tal la vida cotidiana que en la actualidad es necesario para las sociedades modernas establecer mecanismos que faciliten la asimilación de tecnología de punta y la apropiación de conocimiento científico de frontera. La importancia de la ciencia y la tecnología en la sociedad contemporánea hacen de la enseñanza de las ciencias una de las actividades de mayor relevancia en el panorama educativo. Nuestra comprensión de lo que está implicado psicológica y socioculturalmente en el pensamiento científico, en el proceso de descubrimiento y en la evolución de las ideas científicas, tiene incidencia directa en la manera como se diseñan programas de enseñanza de las ciencias en todos los niveles educativos (Bruer, 1993; Larreamendy-Joerns, 1996). Por ello, una cabal comprensión de la naturaleza de la actividad científica constituye una tarea prioritaria de cara a la cualificación de los procesos educativos.spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsTABLA DE CONTENIDOS l . INTRODUCCIÓN.... .. ... ..... .. ....... ............. ... .. .................. ........ ....... ...... 4 2. REVISIÓN DE LA LITERATURA... ................................ ... .... ....... . .... 9 A. El proceso de comprensión..... .. .. ......... ...... ... .... ... .. ... ................ 10 l. El modelo de Construcción-Integración de Kintsch. ... .... 14 2. Comprensión como activación y modificación de patrones exphcatlvos................ .......... ..... ..... .. .. ..... ..... ..... .. . 18 B. El proceso de formulación de preguntas... .. ..... .... ..... ... ..... ..... .... 27 C. Explicación y comprensión en biología evolutiva............. .. ....... . 33 4. OBJETIVOS...... ... . .... .... ..... .. ..... ..... ... . .... .......... ........ .... .......... .... ... ...... 40 5. FORMULACIÓN DEL PROBLEMA ... . ...... ..... ... .... ..... ... .... ..... ....... .... 41 6. METODOLOGIA.... ... .. ...... .. .. ..... ... ....... ... .... .......... ... .. ..... ................ ... . 42 A. Descripción general del diseño.. .. .. .. .. .. ... ............. .. .. .... ... .. ......... 42 B. Participantes. ..... ....................... .. .. .... .... .. .. ...... ... .. ...... .. ............. 43 C. Procedimiento.... ..... ...... ..... .......... .. .... ..... .... .. .. .. ......... ...... .. ...... 43 D. Materiales 46 Análisis conceptual de los textos experimentales... ... ... .... ... 46 7. RESULTADOS................ .... ... .................................. ... ... ....... ....... ..... . 50 A. Descripción general del procedimiento de análisis de datos.. .. .. . 50 B. Diferencias en la extensión de las verbalizaciones.. .. ...... ............ 52 Comprensión de situaciones y formulación de preguntas 3 C. Diferencias en las categorías de procesamiento... ... .... .. ..... ... ...... 56 1. Categorías de análisis......... ..... ... ........ .. ... ...... ...... ......... .. 56 2. Análisis de la formulación de preguntas. ..... ........ ..... ...... 67 3. Análisis de la formulación de hipótesis ........ ...... ... .. .. .. ... 68 4. Análisis del uso de conceptos disciplinarios......... ........... 70 5. Análisis del establecimiento de analogías.. ........ ........... ... 72 6. Análisis de la formulación de críticas... .......... .... .... ......... 74 7. Resumen del análisis de categorías de procesamiento.. ... 75 D. Análisis de las Preguntas Tipo.. .... ... .... ........... ..... .. .... ........ ... .. ... 78 1. Categorías de análisis.... ..... ..... ........ ........... ........... ......... 80 F. Modalidades globales de comprensión de los textos experimentales ............. ..... ...... ... ....... ........................ ... ........ ... ..... . . 90 1 . C omprensl.O, n por para' f ra sl.s ........... ........... .... .. .. ....... ...... . 91 2. Comprensión por ejemplificación ...... ....... ...... ......... ... ::: 94 3. Comprensión por analogía ..... ..... ..... ............ .... .... .. .... .... . 96 8. CONCLUSIONES E IMPLICACIONES EDUCATIVAS ................... . 98 9. REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRAFICAS ....... ........ .... ......... ......... ..... ....... . 104 10. ANEXO No. 1: Textos Experimentales .. ..... ......... .. ... .... .... ..... ... .... ..... . 114 12. ANEXO No. 2: Tablas y Figuras .. .... .. .. .. .. ...... .. ... ...... ........ ... .... .... ...... . 120 11. ANEXO No. 3: liustraciones Experimentales .... .... .. .... .... ..... .. ..... ... .... . 142spa
dc.format.extent150 p.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.minciencias.gov.co/handle/20.500.14143/49973
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherColciencias
dc.publisher.placeBogotá
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.creativecommonsAtribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.lembProyectos de investigación
dc.subject.lembBiología
dc.subject.lembCiencias -- Estudio y enseñanza
dc.subject.proposalPensamiento científicospa
dc.subject.proposalFormulación de preguntasspa
dc.titleComprensión de situaciones problema y formulación de preguntas en biología evolutiva : un estudio comparativo entre expertos y aprendicesspa
dc.typeInforme de investigación
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18ws
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/report
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/INF
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dcterms.referencesAnzai, Y. (1991). Learrung and use of representations for physics expertise. En Ericsson, K. A, & Smith, 1. (Eds.). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
dcterms.referencesBishop, B. A, & Anderson, C. w. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (5), 415-427.
dcterms.referencesBruer, 1. T. (1993). Schools for thOllght: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
dcterms.referencesBrumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Edllcation, 68 (4), 493-503.
dcterms.referencesCarey, S. (1992). The origin and evolution of everyday concepts. En R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models ~f science (pp. 89-128). Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
dcterms.referencesCheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1991). Causes versus enabling conditions. Cognition, 40, 83-120.
dcterms.referencesChi, M. T. H. (en prensa). Analyzing the content ofverbal data to represent knowledge: A practica! guide. Cognitive Science.
dcterms.referencesChi, M. T. H. , Glaser, R. , & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrenee Erlbaum Assoeiates.
dcterms.referencesChi, M. T. H., Hutehinson, J. E., & Robin, A. F. (1989). How inferenees about novel domain-related eoneepts ean be eonstrained by struetured knowledge. Meril/-Palmer Quarterly, 34,27-62.
dcterms.referencesClernent, J. (1982). Students ' preconceptions in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71 .
dcterms.referencesClough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). How secondary students interpret instances ofbiologicaI adaptation. Journal ofBiological Education, 19 (2), 125-130.
dcterms.referencesCurnrnins, C. L., & Rewsen, J. V. Jr. (1992). Research suggestions for studying conceptions ofultirnate and proxirnate causation. En Good, R., G. , Trowbridge, J. E., Dernastes, S. S., Wandersee, J. H., Hafner, M. S., & Cummins, c., L. (Eds.) (1992). Proceedings of lhe 1992 evolution education research conference. Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, December 4-5, 1992.
dcterms.referencesDawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without designo New York: Norton
dcterms.referencesDeadman, J. A. , & Kelly, P. J. (1978). What do secondary sehool boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topies? Journal o/ Biological Education, 12, 7- 15 .
dcterms.referencesEricsson, K. A. , & Simon, H. A. (1989). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
dcterms.referencesEricsson, K. A. , & S rnith , 1. (1991) (Eds.). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
dcterms.referencesFo1tz, D. W. (1992). Using physical analogies to teach population genetics concepts. En Good, R, G., Trowbridge, J. E., Demastes, S. S., Wandersee, 1. H., Hafuer, M. S., & Cumrnins, c., L. (Eds.) (1992). Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference. Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, December 4-5, 1992.
dcterms.referencesGiere, R N. (1992). Cognitive models ofscience. En R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models ofscience (pp. xv-xxvii). Mineapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.
dcterms.referencesGlynn , S. M., & Duit, R (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. En S. M. Glynn & R Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 3-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
dcterms.referencesGlynn, S. M., Duit, R , & Thiele, R B. (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. En En S. M. Glynn & R Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 3-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
dcterms.referencesGood, R., G., Trowbridge, 1. E., Demastes, S. S., Wandersee, 1. H., Hafuer, M. S., & Cumrnins, c., L. (Eds.) (1992). Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference. Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, December 4-5, 1992.
dcterms.referencesGraesser, A. c., & Zwaan, R. A. (1995). Inference generation and the construction of situation models. En C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & c. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 117-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dcterms.referencesGreene, E. D. (1990). The logic of university students' rnisunderstanding of natural se1ection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 875-885.
dcterms.referencesGross, E. c., & Simpson, R. D. (1982). Attitudes ofintroductory college biology students toward evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19 (1), 15-24.
dcterms.referencesHelenurm, K. (1992). Problems facing education in evolution. En Good, R., G. , Trowbridge, J. E., Demastes, S. S., Wandersee, J. H., Hafuer, M. S., & Cumrnins, c., L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference. Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, December 4-5, 1992.
dcterms.referencesJungwirth, E. (1975). The problem of teleology in biology as a problem ofbiology-teacher education. Journal of Biological Education, 9, 243-246.
dcterms.referencesKargbo, D. B., Hobbs, E. D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children's beliefs about inherited characteristics. Journal ~f Biological Education, 14, 137-146.
dcterms.referencesKintsch, W. (1974). The representation ~f meaning in memO/y. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dcterms.referencesKintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
dcterms.referencesKintsch, W. (1989). Learning from text. En L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 25-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dcterms.referencesKintsch, W. (1992). A cognitive architecture for comprehension. En H. Pick, P. van den Broek, & D. C. Knill (Eds.), Cognition: Conceptual and melhodological issues (pp. 143-164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
dcterms.referencesKintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, -19, 292-303 .
dcterms.referencesKintsch, W., & Greeno, 1. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109-129
dcterms.referencesKitcher, P. (1982). Abusing science: The case against evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
dcterms.referencesKitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. En P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol XIII (pp. 410-506). Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press
dcterms.referencesKitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science wilhout legend, o~jectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
dcterms.referencesKlahr, D., & Dumbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
dcterms.referencesKlare, G. R. (1984). Readability. En R. Barr, M. L. Karnil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (Vol. 2, pp. 681-774). New York: Longman.
dcterms.referencesKucan, L. & Beck, I. L. (1996). Four fourth graders thinking aloud: An investigation of genre effects. Journal of Liferacy Research, 28, 2,259-287.
dcterms.referencesKuhn, D., Amsel, E. , & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development C?f scient!fic thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Acadernic Press.
dcterms.referencesLakoff, G. (1987). Women, jire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
dcterms.referencesLarreamendy-Joerns, 1. (1994). Recognition of explanatory patterns in evolutionary biology by experts and novices. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, USA. Technical Report
dcterms.referencesLarreamendy-Joerns, 1. (1996). Learning science from texl: Effects of theOlY and examples on college students' ability lo construct explanations in evolutionary biology. Disertación doctoral no publicada. University ofPittsburgh.
dcterms.referencesLarreamendy-Joerns, 1., & Ohlsson, S. (1995). Evidence for explanatory patterns in evolutionary biology. In 1. D. Moore & 1. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of Ihe 17th Annllal Conference of the Cognitive Science Sociely (pp. 637-643). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
dcterms.referencesLawson, A E., & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 733-746.
dcterms.referencesLawson, A E., & Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life: Effects of instruction and reasoning skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (6), 589- 606.
dcterms.referencesLukas, A M. (1971). The teaching ofadaptation. Journal of Biological Educa/ion, 5,86- 90.
dcterms.referencesMannes, S., & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and lnstruction, 4, 91-115.
dcterms.referencesMayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press.
dcterms.referencesMcCloskey, M., Caramazza, A , & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 2] O, 1139-1141 .
dcterms.referencesMcKoon, G. , & Ratlcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. En C. A Weaver, S. Mannes, & c. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discow'se comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mayr, E. (1982). Growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
dcterms.referencesMcNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in leaming from texto Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1, 1-43.
dcterms.referencesNewell, A, & Simon, H. A (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
dcterms.referencesOhlsson, S. (1991). Young adulls' understanding of e volu tionat y explanations: Preliminar y observations. Technical Report. Leaming Research and Development Center, University ofPittsburgh.
dcterms.referencesOhlsson, S., & Bee, N. (1993). Constructing and reading evolutionafy explanations improve (some) students' understanding of Darwin's theOlY. Technica1 Report. Leaming Research and Development Center, University ofPittsburgh.
dcterms.referencesOkada, T., & Simon, H. A (1995). Collaborative discovery in a scientiflc domain. Working paper No. 525. Department ofPsychology. Carnegie Mellon University
dcterms.referencesPatel, V. L., & Groen, G. 1. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise. En Ericsson, K. A, & Srnith, 1. (Eds.). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
dcterms.referencesPressley, M., & Afilerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dcterms.referencesRam, T. (1994). AQUA: A question-driven learning and explaining system. En Schank, R. C., Kass, A, & Riesbeck, C. K. (Ed.), ¡nside case-based explanation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dcterms.referencesRenner, J. W., Brumby, M., & Sheperd, D. L (1981) Why are there no dinosaurs in Oklahoma? The Science Teacher, December, 22-24.
dcterms.referencesRuse, M. (1982). Danllinism Defended: A guide lo the evolution controversies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
dcterms.referencesSamarapungavan, A, & Wiers, R. W. (subrnitted). What constitules an explanatOly framework? Examples from children 's ideas about speciation.
dcterms.referencesSchank, R. C. (1986). Explanation pafferns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
dcterms.referencesSchank, R. c., Kass, A, & Riesbeck, C. K. (Eds.). (1994). ¡nside case-based explanation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dcterms.referencesScharmann, L. c., & Harris, W. M. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature ofscience. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 29 (4),375 .
dcterms.referencesSchauble, L., et. al. (1991). Causal models and processes of discovery. Journal of {he Learning Sciences, 1,201 -238.
dcterms.referencesSimon, H. A (1989). Models ofthought (Vol. 2). New Haven: Vale University Pres
dcterms.referencesThagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
dcterms.referencesvan Dijk, T. A , & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
dcterms.referencesVanLehn, K., Jones, R.M., & Chi, M.T.H. (1992). A model ofthe self-explanation effect. Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 2 (1), 1-59.
dcterms.referencesWandersee, 1. H. (1992). What is biologicalliteracy? En Good, R., G., Trowbridge, 1. E. , Demastes, S. S., Wandersee, J. H., Hafuer, M. S., & Curnmins, C., L. (Eds.) (1992). Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference. Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, December 4-5, 1992.
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
oaire.awardnumber11061138698
oaire.awardtitleComprensión de situaciones problema y formulación de preguntas en biología evolutiva : un estudio comparativo entre expertos y aprendices
oaire.funderidentifier.colciencias11061138698
oaire.fundernameDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación [CO] Colciencias
oaire.versionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
1106-11-386-98.pdf
Size:
41.95 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
15.18 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Informes Finales de Proyectos de Investigación