Abstract

There is compelling evidence to show that peer argumentation prompts student scientific concept development at different ages. However, there is also evidence that when students discuss their ideas with their peers, the gains are delayed rather than being immediately evident. Moreover, group outcomes do not seem to be related to individual gains. It is hypothesized that peer discussions trigger a metacognitive process that, in turn, prompts the post-collaborative settlement of students' differences. In classroom settings, it is likely that whole-class interaction plays a relevant role, but this has not yet been properly explored. We conducted a case study with the aim of describing how whole-class interaction may contribute to students' knowledge transformation initiated during peer discussions. We followed one group of four students during a whole unit (Forces) and described how progressive small-group and whole-class interactions prompt the transformation of some notions (gravity and magnetic force) from pre- to post-tests, while leaving others almost unchanged. The results suggest that, while rich peer argumentation around contradictory ideas (discussion) followed by repetitive whole-class arguments may contribute to the progressive transformation of scientific ideas, the mere expression of contradictory ideas, involving tangential argumentation and followed by authoritative whole-class corrections but no arguments, only partially leads to changes. The internalization of the whole-class argument facilitated by peer discussions may enable students to reason in new situations.