Secondary students' epistemic performances in argumentation and inquiry practices within the context of food safety

INTERNATIONAL DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF THE USC Lucía Casas Quiroga PhD Thesis Secondary students' epistemic performances in argumentation and inquiry practices within the context of food safety Santiago de Compostela, 2023 Doctoral Programme in Education TESE DE DOUTORAMENTO SECONDARY STUDENTS' EPISTEMIC PERFORMANCES IN ARGUMENTATION AND INQUIRY PRACTICES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FOOD SAFETY Lucía Casas Quiroga ESCOLA DE DOUTORAMENTO INTERNACIONAL DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA PROGRAMA DE DOUTORAMENTO EN EDUCACIÓN SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA ANO 2023 DECLARACIÓN DO AUTOR/A DA TESE Dna. Lucía Casas Quiroga Título da tese: Secondary students' epistemic performances in argumentation and inquiry practices within the context of food safety Presento a miña tese, seguindo o procedemento axeitado ao Regulamento, e declaro que: 1) A tese abarca os resultados da elaboración do meu traballo. 2) De ser o caso, na tese faise referencia ás colaboracións que tivo este traballo. 3) Confirmo que a tese non incorre en ningún tipo de plaxio doutros autores nin de traballos presentados por min para a obtención doutros títulos. 4) A tese é a versión definitiva presentada para a súa defensa e coincide a versión impresa coa presentada en formato electrónico E comprométome a presentar o Compromiso Documental de Supervisión no caso de que o orixinal non estea na Escola. En Santiago de Compostela, a 17 de Decembro de 2022. Asdo. Lucía Casas Quiroga AUTORIZACIÓN DA DIRECTORA E DA TITORA DA TESE Secondary students' epistemic performances in argumentation and inquiry practices within the context of food safety Dna. Beatriz Crujeiras Pérez (directora) Dna. Elena Fernández Rey (titora) INFORMAN: Que a presente tese, correspóndese co traballo realizado por Dna. Lucía Casas Quiroga, baixo a miña dirección, e a utorizo a súa presentación , considerando que reúne os r equisitos esixidos no R egulamento de Estudos de Doutoramento da USC, e que como director desta non incorre nas causas de abstención establecidas na Lei 40/2015. De acordo co indicado no Regulamento de Estudos de Doutoramento, declara tamén que a presente tese de doutoramento é idónea para ser defendida en base á modalidade de COMPENDIO DE PUBLICACIÓNS , nos que a participación da doutoranda foi decisiva para a súa elaboración e as publicacións se axustan ao Plan de Investigación. En Santiago de Compostela, 15 de decembro de 2022 Asdo. Beatriz Crujeiras Pérez (directora) Asdo. Elena Fernández Rey (titora) A Teresa Dávila RESUMO O obxectivo principal desta tese é analizar os desempeños do alumnado nas prácticas científicas de indagación e argumentación durante a súa participación nunha secuencia de actividades baseada en seguridade alimentaria e emerxencias sanitarias de orixe alimentario. Tamén se analiza o coñecemento epistémico necesario para unha participación axeitada do alumnado en ditas prácticas. Este propósito xeral concrétase en tres obxectivos máis específicos coas súas respectivas preguntas de investigación, os cales se formulan a continuación: O1. Deseñar actividades de aula para promover o desenvolvemento de prácticas científicas no contexto da seguridade alimentaria co alumnado de educación secundaria. Este obxectivo abórdase na publicación 1, aínda que en dita publicación non se especifica unha pregunta de investigación. Tamén se aborda indirectamente nas publicacións 2, 3 e 4, as cales presentan as actividades do estudo final. P1. Que características deberían ter as actividades de aula para promover a participación de estudantes de secundaria nas prácticas científicas no contexto da seguridade alimentaria? O2. Analizar o coñecemento epistémico implicado na participación do alumnado nas prácticas de indagación e argumentación. Este obxectivo abórdase a través das preguntas de investigación P2a e P2b, que se analizan na publicación 2, e das preguntas P2c e P2d, que se analizan na publicación 3. P2a. Que operacións epistémicas levan a cabo pequenos grupos de estudantes durante as súas conversacións sobre como resolver unha emerxencia alimentaria durante un xogo de rol? P2b. Que operacións epistémicas prevalecen nas decisións do alumnado para resolver a emerxencia alimentaria durante un xogo de rol? P2c. Que coñecemento epistémico disciplinar empregan estudantes de secundaria á hora de deseñar un experimento para identificar a causa dunha emerxencia alimentaria? P2d. Que coñecemento epistémico disciplinar utilizan estudantes de secundaria para avaliar as medidas tomadas no curso dunha emerxencia alimentaria? Resumo 15 O3. Analizar como emprega os datos o alumnado de secundaria durante a participación na práctica de argumentación. Isto abórdase a través das preguntas de investigación P3a e P3b, as cales se analizan na publicación 4. P3a. Que fontes de información utiliza o alumnado na toma de decisións durante un xogo de rol para resolver unha emerxencia alimentaria? P3b. Que criterios considera o alumnado como prioritarios na toma de decisións durante un xogo de rol para resolver unha emerxencia alimentaria? Marco teórico O marco teórico no que se fundamenta esta investigación sitúase dentro da Epistemoloxía da Ciencia, e máis concretamente na perspectiva social e na perspectiva disciplinar (Kelly et al., 2012). Dado que o propósito principal desta tese é explorar a influenza do coñecemento epistémico para unha participación axeitada nas prácticas científicas, tamén se aborda a relevancia destas prácticas para a aprendizaxe das ciencias. A participación dos estudantes nas prácticas de argumentación e indagación promóvese a través dunha secuencia de actividades sobre seguridade alimentaria, trasladando este tema ao contexto educativo como unha cuestión socio-científica. Desta forma, o marco teórico está vertebrado arredor de tres eixes principais: a) a aprendizaxe das ciencias a través das prácticas científicas; b) a influencia do coñecemento epistémico para a participación nas prácticas científicas e c) a seguridade alimentaria como unha cuestión socio-científica para a aprendizaxe das ciencias a través das prácticas científicas. A aprendizaxe das ciencias a través das prácticas científicas O consenso actual da comunidade científica sobre a aprendizaxe das ciencias implica que esta ten que ser coherente cos procesos de construción do coñecemento científico (Duschl e Gandy, 2013; Osborne, 2014). Isto se traslada aos contextos de aprendizaxe cun enfoque baseado no desenvolvemento das prácticas científicas, entendidas como as prácticas utilizadas para elaborar, ampliar e perfeccionar o coñecemento (NRC, 2012). Este enfoque permite que os estudantes reflexionen sobre a súa propia comprensión das ideas científicas (NASEM, 2015) e que teñan un achegamento á forma na que a comunidade científica constrúe o coñecemento (Reiser et al, 2012). Este concepto de práctica provén do marco curricular do NRC (2012) para os Estados Unidos de América, o cal contempla oito prácticas para a aula de ciencias baseadas no traballo dos científicos, que son: 1) Formular cuestións científicas, 2) Construír e usar modelos, 3) Planificar e levar a cabo investigacións, 4) Analizar e interpretar datos, 5) Usar razoamento matemático e computacional, 6) Construír explicacións, 7) Argumentar en base a probas, e 8) Obter, avaliar e comunicar información. Estas oito prácticas xorden das tres esferas da actividade científica profesional propostas por Osborne (2011): investigar, avaliar e elaborar explicacións e solucións. De acordo con Jiménez-Aleixandre e Crujeiras-Pérez (2017) existe unha correspondencia entre estas esferas e as tres competencias científicas avaliadas no marco de PISA de 2015 centrado nas ciencias (OECD, 2016): avaliar e deseñar indagacións científicas, interpretar datos e probas cientificamente e elaborar explicacións científicas. A efectos de investigación, referímonos a elas como indagación, argumentación e modelización, respectivamente. Todas son requiridas para acadar a alfabetización científica, entendida como a capacidade para comprender o impacto da ciencia e a tecnoloxía na vida cotiá así como para tomar decisións relacionadas con cuestións científicas (Roberts e Bybee, 2014). LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 16 Neste traballo de investigación, abórdanse as prácticas de argumentación e indagación a través da secuencia de actividades sobre seguridade alimentaria. A práctica de argumentación enténdese como a avaliación dos enunciados en base a probas, entendendo que os argumentos científicos teñen que estar apoiados en probas e polo tanto xustificados (Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2010). O marco de PISA de 2015 (OECD, 2016) menciona que a argumentación implica a identificación de conexións apropiadas ou erróneas entre probas e conclusións. En contextos educativos, esta práctica estudouse dende dúas perspectivas diferentes pero relacionadas (Konstantinidou e Macagno, 2012): 1) dialóxica, centrada nos razoamentos para apoiar un afirmación, e 2) estrutural, centrada na estrutura formal dos argumentos. En moitos estudos tamén se destaca a natureza social da argumentación (Kolstø e Radcliffe, 2007; Berland e Reiser, 2009; Chinn e Osborne, 2010) propoñendo que a argumentación no ámbito da ciencia é considerada unha práctica social a través da cal os membros dunha comunidade dan sentido a un fenómeno a través do discurso. Os beneficios e as dificultades derivadas da participación do alumando na práctica científica da argumentación están extensamente documentados na literatura, da que se inclúe unha revisión, e hai numerosas intervencións de aula que promoven esta práctica. A práctica de indagación implica un conxunto de actividades relacionadas coa investigación científica (NRC, 2012) como por exemplo planear experimentos prestando atención ás observacións e á toma de datos, construír instrumentos ou identificar fontes de incerteza. O marco de PISA de 2015 (OECD, 2016) describe a indagación como o deseño e avaliación de investigacións científicas, así como a proposta e avaliación de formas de estudiar unha cuestión cientificamente. Tamén se realiza unha revisión dos estudos que documentan os beneficios e as dificultades xerados trala participación dos estudantes na práctica de indagación, así como os retos que supón para a práctica docente. Ademais, tamén se recollen as intervencións de aula baseadas na práctica de indagación para o alumando de secundaria no contexto español. A influencia do coñecemento epistémico para a participación nas prácticas científicas Entendese por coñecemento epistémico a comprensión do papel dos constructos específicos e das características esencias dos procesos de construción de coñecemento científico (Duschl, 2008). A relevancia do coñecemento epistémico para a aprendizaxe das ciencias fíxose patente trala súa incorporación ao marco PISA de 2015 (OECD, 2016) como un tipo de coñecemento a avaliar. Estudos posteriores relacionan un alto nivel de coñecemento epistémico con mellores desempeños nas prácticas científicas (Crujeiras-Pérez e Brocos, 2021). Da mesma forma, Berland et al. (2016) afirman que unha aprendizaxe significativa a través das prácticas científicas non só depende das propias prácticas, se non do coñecemento epistémico involucrado nelas. O coñecemento epistémico pode ser estudando desde varias perspectivas que serven a diferentes propósitos (Kelly et al., 2012): 1) A perspectiva disciplinar, centrada nas diferentes formas nas que a historia e a filosofía da ciencia inflúen na aprendizaxe; 2) A perspectiva social, centrada en como o coñecemento se constrúe de forma interactiva en contextos de aprendizaxe; e 3) A perspectiva persoal, centrada en como as crenzas epistemolóxicas do alumnado inflúen na aprendizaxe. Neste traballo de investigación analízanse as conversas do alumnado en Resumo 17 actividades que promoven a súa participación nas prácticas de indagación e argumentación desde as perspectivas disciplinar e social. A perspectiva disciplinar céntrase no rol do coñecemento disciplinar para a aprendizaxe das ciencias (Kelly et al., 2012) e en como a comunidade científica emprega ese coñecemento (Kelly, 2008a). Tamén analiza asuntos relativos á natureza das probas ou aos criterios para escoller una teoría científica sobre outra (Grandy e Duschl, 2008). De acordo con Sandoval (2016), o alumnado ten que comprender as xustificacións que contribúen a lexitimar o coñecemento dentro dunha disciplina concreta e desta forma obter unha guía para a súa aprendizaxe mediante a comparación entre o coñecemento da disciplina e a súa versión escolar. Tendo en conta o enfoque de aprendizaxe a través das prácticas científicas (NRC, 2012), é importante estudar de que forma as intervencións dos estudantes reflexan o coñecemento establecido pola comunidade científica. No caso da práctica de indagación, algúns dos aspectos epistémicos disciplinares relevantes para esta práctica serían que o resultado dun único experimento é insuficiente para establecer unha conclusión (Osborne et al., 2003) ou que a sistematicidade é unha característica da metodoloxía científica (Sandoval e Reiser, 2004). No caso da práctica de argumentación algúns dos aspectos epistémicos relevantes son que unha conclusión debe responder á pregunta formulada e estar sustentada en probas (Chen et al., 2016) ou que a autoridade é menos persuasiva que as probas (Kittleson, 2011; Sandoval e Çam, 2011). Pese a que o marco teórico da perspectiva disciplinar está ben establecido, non hai moitos estudos que exploren a influencia do coñecemento epistémico en contextos de aprendizaxe das ciencias. Neste traballo examínase o coñecemento disciplinar empregado polo alumnado nun contexto de indagación e argumentación. A perspectiva social céntrase nos procesos de negociación para construír coñecemento entre os membros dun grupo nun contexto particular (Kelly et al., 2012). As formas específicas nas que os membros dun grupo producen, avalían, comunican e lexitiman enunciados de coñecemento a través da interacción coñécense como prácticas epistémicas (Kelly, 2008a). O discurso ten unha gran importancia para esta perspectiva, xa que a aprendizaxe das ciencias implica o desenvolvemento de prácticas discursivas que permitan a participación no coñecemento e prácticas de grupos socias, como as comunidades de aprendizaxe (Kelly, 2008b). Kelly e Licona (2018) propoñen unha caracterización para as prácticas epistémicas baseada en catro elementos definitorios para elas: 1) interactivas, construídas entre persoas a través dunha actividade concertada; 2) contextuais, situadas en prácticas sociais e normas culturais; 3) intertextuais, comunicadas a través de discursos, signos e símbolos coherentes; e 4) consecuenciais, xeradoras de coñecemento consensuado que inflúe na cultura. Estes autores clasifican as prácticas epistémicas en catro dimensións asociadas con procesos cognitivos: produción de coñecemento, avaliación de coñecemento, comunicación de coñecemento e lexitimación de coñecemento. Christodoulou e Osborne (2014) diferencian prácticas e operacións epistémicas, definindo estas últimas como accións discursivas concretas que promoven a xeración e construción de coñecemento e cuxa suma contribúe a un mesmo obxectivo, que sería a práctica epistémica. Neste traballo examínanse as operacións epistémicas que levan a cabo estudantes de secundaria nun contexto argumentativo a dous niveis: discusións en grupo pequeno e debate xeral de toda a clase. A seguridade alimentaria como unha cuestión socio-científica para a aprendizaxe das ciencias a través das prácticas científicas LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 18 A seguridade alimentaria comprende todos aqueles riscos que poden comprometer a saúde co consumidor (FAO/WHO, 2003). É unha fonte de preocupación social, xa que está directamente relacionada coa contaminación química e microbiolóxica dos alimentos e coas enfermidades de orixe alimentario. A pesar de que outros aspectos relacionados coa alimentación como a nutrición, as dietas ou os organismos modificados xeneticamente (Walker e Zeidler, 2007) ou o impacto ambiental das diferentes dietas (Brocos-Mosquera e Jiménez- Aleixandre, 2020) xa se estudiaron no ámbito da aprendizaxe das ciencias, a seguridade alimentaria recibiu menos atención e a maioría de estudos que abordan esta temática na aula examinan as actitudes e coñecementos dos estudantes sobre seguridade alimentaria (Sanlier e Konaklioglu, 2012; Booth et al., 2013), pero non se centran nos procesos de aprendizaxe. Neste traballo de investigación, proponse que a seguridade alimentaria pode trasladarse á aula como unha cuestión socio-científica, é dicir, como un dilema social que garde relación coa ciencia, requira de coñecemento científico e teña potencial para crear unha controversia (Sadler e Zeidler, 2005). Estas cuestións teñen que representar problemas reais aos que se enfrontan os científicos e os cidadáns a nivel local, nacional ou global (Chowdhury et al., 2020). As actividades deseñadas para este traballo de investigación cumpren estes requisitos. Ademais, os procesos de razoamento asociados coas cuestións socio-científicas (Zeidler et al., 2019) poden asociarse co enfoque de aprendizaxe a través das prácticas científicas. Metodoloxía Esta tese enmárcase, a nivel metodolóxico, dentro da investigación cualitativa, entendida como unha actividade situada, na que o observador se sitúa no contexto no que ocorren os fenómenos a estudar, os cales se interpreta en función dos significados que as persoas lles atribúen (Denzin e Lincoln, 2018). Dentro das variacións da investigación cualitativa, esta investigación enmárcase no estudo de caso (Yin, 2003). A toma de datos comprende varios estudos de caso. En particular, realizáronse dous estudos piloto antes da implementación da secuencia de actividades no estudo final. Os estudos piloto leváronse a cabo en dous centros públicos situados nunha área urbana de Galicia e os participantes foron alumnado de 4º de ESO na materia de Ciencias Aplicadas á Actividade Profesional e alumnado de 1º de BAC na materia de Cultura Científica. O estudo final levouse a cabo nun centro público do interior de Galicia situado nunha cidade pequena. Os participantes foron 13 alumnos de 4º de ESO e 14 alumnos de 1º de BAC na materia de Bioloxía e Xeoloxía. O cambio de materia entre os estudos piloto e o final estivo motivado pola necesidade de contar cun número maior de alumnos para o traballo en pequenos grupos e tamén para contar con alumnado con maior formación en ciencias, dado que a seguridade alimentaria é un tema complexo que non se aborda directamente no currículo escolar (CCEOU, 2015). É relevante mencionar que a investigadora levou a cabo a implementación da secuencia de actividades, dado que os profesores non tiñan experiencia previa coas prácticas científicas na aula nin coa temática da seguridade alimentaria. De todas formas, realizouse unha reunión co profesorado e co director do centro para aclarar dúbidas e consultar as posibles adaptacións da secuencia ás necesidades dos participantes. O principal obxectivo que persegue a secuencia didáctica é promover a participación do alumnado nas prácticas científicas de indagación (deseño de investigacións científicas) e argumentación (avaliación do coñecemento en base a probas). Dado que esa participación ten que ser significativa para os estudantes, as actividades promoven o discurso epistémico, Resumo 19 proporcionando oportunidades para participar en conversacións sobre a construción e a validación do coñecemento científico. Isto abórdase no contexto da seguridade alimentaria, trasladada á aula de ciencias como unha cuestión socio-científica. Dentro deste contexto centrámonos máis concretamente na importancia dos protocolos sanitarios, nas enfermidades de orixe alimentario e na xestión de recursos para solucionar emerxencias asociadas a estas enfermidades. A secuencia didáctica do estudo final consta de tres actividades realizadas maioritariamente en pequenos grupos ao longo de catro sesións. A primeira é de tipo introdutorio e está deseñada para facer unha valoración inicial dos coñecementos do alumnado sobre seguridade alimentaria. Tamén se empeza a traballar a práctica de argumentación. A segunda céntrase nas prácticas de indagación e argumentación e a terceira na práctica de argumentación. A toma de datos tivo lugar ao longo das catro sesións. A investigadora adoptou o rol de observadora participante polas razóns mencionadas anteriormente. Os instrumentos de recollida de datos e triangulación foron: 1) informes escritos das actividades, 2) gravacións de audio e vídeo, e 3) notas de campo da investigadora. A análise dos datos lévase a cabo empregando estratexias propias da análise do discurso (Gee e Hartford, 2012). O proceso de análise comeza coas transcricións das gravacións de audio das conversas, co apoio das gravacións de vídeo. A unidade de análise foi a quenda de palabra, aínda que no caso da publicación 4 identificáronse diferentes episodios (Gee, 2005) para levar a cabo a categorización do discurso. O proceso de análise tivo lugar en interacción cos datos e a literatura, entendendo que a análise non debe partir de categorías preestabelecidas (Yin, 2011). As rúbricas xeradas a partir deste proceso serviron para dar resposta aos obxectivos de investigación. Publicacións Publicación 1. Una experiencia sobre seguridad alimentaria para trabajar la argumentación en el aula de educación secundaria. Esta publicación é o punto de partida para desenvolver e xustificar a secuencia de actividades desta tese. Correspóndese coa análise das catro actividades deseñadas para o primeiro estudo piloto. Nesta publicación abórdase a pregunta de investigación P1. Identificáronse unha serie de dificultades en relación aos desempeños dos estudantes na práctica de argumentación, as cales foron corrixidas para o estudo final. Nas primeiras dúas actividades do estudo piloto, os estudantes non lograron incorporar en moitos casos datos dunha noticia de prensa sobre unha emerxencia alimentaria xurdida nun instituto para elaborar xustificacións. Ademais, traballaron de forma individual, de forma que non se favoreceu a co-construción do coñecemento, como recomendan Driver et al. (1994). As actividades 3 e 4 do estudo piloto si se levaron a cabo en pequenos grupos, pero o alumnado tivo dificultades para comprender os pasos do protocolo da OMS para emerxencias de saúde pública e tamén se detectaron diferenzas nos desempeños en argumentación entre os grupos con maior e menor formación en ciencias, coincidente cos resultados do estudo de Oliveras Prat e Marquez Bargalló (2013). LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 20 As correccións realizadas no estudo final derivadas da análise dos estudos piloto contribuíron a mellorar os desempeños do alumnado e a unha mellor obtención de datos, o que coincide coa visión de Malmqvist et al. (2019) sobre a utilidade dos estudos piloto. Publicación 2. Epistemic operations performed by high school students in an argumentation and decision-making context: Setrocia’s alimentary emergency. Esta publicación sitúase na perspectiva social da Epistemoloxía da Ciencia e analiza as operacións epistémicas levadas a cabo polo alumnado durante a súa participación nun xogo de rol, a terceira actividade da secuencia didáctica do estudo final. O xogo de rol introduce unha emerxencia alimentaria nun país ficticio con diferentes recursos que deberán ser utilizados para atopar a causa dunha enfermidade de orixe descoñecida e solucionar as consecuencias do brote. Promóvese a participación do alumnado na práctica de argumentación e en procesos de toma de decisións. Nesta publicación abórdanse as preguntas de investigación P2a e P2b. A análise das operacións epistémicas, definidas como accións discursivas (Christodoulou e Osborne, 2014) que se poden clasificar dentro das prácticas epistémicas de produción, avaliación, comunicación e lexitimación de coñecemento, permitiu diferenciar que tipo de práctica estaba máis presente no discurso dos estudantes a dous niveis diferentes: discusións en grupo pequeno e debates xerais. Os resultados das discusión en grupo pequeno suxiren unha predominancia moi clara da práctica de produción de coñecemento. Porén, nos debates xerais, atopouse que a práctica de avaliación de coñecemento era máis frecuente nos momentos nos que existían desacordos sobre como proceder para solucionar a emerxencia. As operacións epistémicas de comunicación e lexitimación do coñecemento están practicamente ausentes no discurso dos estudantes. Publicación 3. Epistemic knowledge considered by secondary school students involved in the examination of a real alimentary emergency. Esta publicación sitúase na perspectiva disciplinar da Epistemoloxía da Ciencia e analiza o coñecemento epistémico disciplinar que o alumnado toma en consideración durante unha actividade de dúas fases que promove a súa participación nas prácticas de indagación e argumentación. Esta actividade é a segunda da secuencia didáctica do estudo final. Nesta actividade, o alumnado ten que examinar os feitos acontecidos tras unha emerxencia alimentaria real. Isto realízase mediante o deseño dun experimento para estudar a emerxencia que se lles presenta (fase de deseño, na que se aborda a práctica de indagación) e posteriormente cunha avaliación das medidas e decisións reais da emerxencia (fase de avaliación, na que se abordan as prácticas de indagación e argumentación. Nesta publicación abórdanse as preguntas de investigación P2c e P2d. A análise do coñecemento disciplinar empregado polos estudantes realizouse con posterioridade a unha revisión da literatura na que se identificou o coñecemento epistémico relevante para as diferentes prácticas científicas. Nesta actividade non se promove todo ese coñecemento e as rúbricas para a análise adáptanse ao contexto da actividade. Os resultados desta publicación suxiren que durante a fase de deseño os estudantes empregaron coñecemento disciplinar diverso relativo á práctica de indagación, aínda que non tiveron en conta en ningún caso a reproducibilidade do experimento. Durante a fase de Resumo 21 avaliación existe maior variabilidade entre os grupos, pero ningún fai referencia á viabilidade do experimento para resolver cuestións no ámbito da ciencia. Publicación 4. Trabajando la respuesta ante enfermedades de origen alimentario a través del juego de rol. Esta publicación analiza os procesos de toma de decisións que teñen lugar no xogo de rol. Máis especificamente, analízanse as fontes de información e os criterios que os estudantes consideran para tomar unha decisión. Nesta publicación abórdanse as preguntas de investigación P3a e P3b. Esta análise ten a súa orixe nos resultados da publicación 2, que reflexa unha clara predominancia das accións discursivas encamiñadas á produción de coñecemento, que xerou interese por estudar o proceso de construción deste coñecemento. As fontes de información e os criterios analizáronse de forma separada, de novo para as discusións en pequeno grupo e os debates xerais. Esta análise reflexa algunhas das dificultades ás que se enfronta a comunidade científica á hora de tomar unha decisión como a selección das probas (Christodoulou e Osborne, 2014), que pode relacionarse coas fontes de información e a necesidade de considerar posturas alternativas (Acar et al., 2010), que pode equipararse aos criterios. Os resultados suxiren que os estudantes utilizan fontes de información variadas, pero a máis frecuente é a especulación. Porén, céntranse en criterios concretos a medida que avanza a actividade, os cales cambian entre as discusións en pequeno grupo e os debates xerais. Discusión Xeral O obxectivo principal desta tese é analizar o coñecemento epistémico que precisan os estudantes de secundaria para unha participación axeitada nas prácticas de indagación (análise de investigacións científicas) e argumentación (interpretación de datos e probas) que se abordan no contexto da seguridade alimentaria. Tamén se estuda como desenvolver as prácticas científicas na aula a través de tarefas que as promovan dun xeito adecuado. A publicación 1 aporta un achegamento inicial ao enfoque da aprendizaxe das ciencias a través da argumentación que resultou en información valiosa para realizar as correccións pertinentes para o estudo final. As publicacións 2 e 3 supoñen a principal contribución desta tese, xa que aportan unha análise moi detallada levada a cabo mediante a análise de discurso, do coñecemento epistémico que os estudantes necesitan incorporar para unha participación significativa en indagación e argumentación. A importancia do coñecemento epistémico para as prácticas científicas está apoiada na revisión da literatura, pero tamén nos resultados das publicacións, que proporcionan moitos exemplos de como os estudantes empregan ese coñecemento epistémico nas súas conversas. Estes resultados proporcionan información sobre o tipo de coñecemento epistémico con maior ou menor presencia nas intervencións do alumnado (ben eu forma de prácticas epistémicas ou coñecemento disciplinar). Ademais, a forma de promover a aparición de coñecemento epistémico no discurso é diferente, o que nos permite facer apreciacións sobre a idoneidade dun enfoque implícito ou explícito. Na publicación 4 tamén se emprega a análise do discurso para identificar as fontes de información e os criterios que os estudantes utilizan para a toma de decisións, o que deriva nunha LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 22 aproximación de como os estudantes se desenvolven na práctica de argumentación nun contexto de seguridade alimentaria que reflexa problemáticas do mundo real. Desta forma, este estudo proporciona información relevante para o deseño de contextos de aprendizaxe e para a ensinanza das ciencias, dado que mostra as fortalezas e debilidades do enfoque de aprendizaxe a través das prácticas científicas e polo tanto permite facer apreciacións sobre as estratexias de andamiaxe máis axeitadas para mellorar os desempeños do alumnado. Conclusións A análise do obxectivo 1, deseñar actividades de aula para promover o desenvolvemento de prácticas científicas no contexto da seguridade alimentaria co alumnado de educación secundaria, permítenos establecer tres conclusións: 1. O alumnado tivo dificultades á hora de interpretar os datos para elaborar conclusións e construír argumentos durante a implementación da secuencia de actividades do primeiro estudo piloto. 2. A temporalización é un factor clave para unha participación axeitada do alumnado nas prácticas científicas. 3. A temática da seguridade alimentaria presenta complexidade para os estudantes e require dunha andamiaxe axeitada desde a práctica docente para unha aprendizaxe efectiva a través das prácticas científicas A análise do obxectivo 2, analizar o coñecemento epistémico implicado na participación do alumnado nas prácticas de indagación e argumentación, permítenos establecer seis conclusións: 4. A práctica epistémica de produción de coñecemento foi a máis frecuente durante as discusións en pequeno grupo que tiveron lugar durante o xogo de rol. 5. A ausencia case total das prácticas epistémicas de comunicación e lexitimación do coñecemento nas discusións en pequeno grupo do xogo de rol foi un tanto inesperada e está relacionada co deseño da actividade. 6. O feito de que a práctica epistémica de avaliación do coñecemento apareza con maior frecuencia nos debates xerais que nas discusións en grupo pequeno do xogo de rol ten relación cos desacordos entre as propostas dos diferentes grupos 7. O coñecemento epistémico disciplinar relativo á practica de indagación identificado nas conversas dos estudantes durante a fase de deseño e de avaliación dunha emerxencia alimentaria real abarcou moitos aspectos do deseño experimental, pero pasou por alto outros. 8. O coñecemento epistémico disciplinar relativo á practica de argumentación identificado nas conversas dos estudantes durante a fase de avaliación dunha emerxencia alimentaria real ten relación con dous compoñentes esenciais da argumentación socio-científica. Resumo 23 9. Trala comparación dos enfoques implícito e explícito para examinar o coñecemento epistémico, recoméndase un enfoque explícito-reflexivo. A análise do obxectivo 3, analizar como utilizan os datos os estudantes durante a participación na práctica de argumentación, permítenos establecer dúas conclusións: 10. A especulación foi a fonte de información primaria durante o xogo de rol e aínda que se foi reducindo gradualmente, guiou as conversas dos estudantes máis do desexable. 11. Non se atopou un criterio preferente nas conversas do alumnado sobre o xogo de rol e cambiaron entre as discusións en grupo pequeno e debates xerais, establecendo un paralelismo cos escenarios reais representados polas cuestións socio-científicas. Implicacións educativas En relación co primeiro obxectivo de investigación, suxerimos unha reflexión profunda por parte dos docentes sobre a forma de presentar os datos e probas ao alumnado para a construción de argumentos. No noso caso, considerando as actividades do estudo final, a información se presentou de forma simplificada, clasificada e administrada do tempo para facilitar a súa comprensión. Coincidimos con estudos como o de Berland et al. (2020), que aborda a necesidade de proporcionar unha andamiaxe adecuada para que o alumnado poida lograr unha aprendizaxe significativa a través das prácticas científicas. Isto é aínda máis relevante con temas coas que o alumando está menos familiarizado, como é o caso da seguridade alimentaria. En relación co segundo obxectivo de investigación, estamos de acordo con que o coñecemento epistémico ten que ser tomado en consideración para unha aprendizaxe significativa a través das prácticas científicas (Berland et al., 2016) que axuden ao alumnado a alcanzar un entendemento dos coñecementos e prácticas da comunidade científica (Stroupe, 2014). Desta forma, é necesario elaborar ferramentas para a análise do coñecemento epistémico en contextos de aprendizaxe baseados nas prácticas científicas e así poder obter información relevante para a práctica docente. Propoñemos tamén que a análise do coñecemento epistémico a través de diferentes perspectivas (no noso caso, social e disciplinar) proporciona información aínda máis valiosa para este fin, xa que cada perspectiva se centra en aspectos diferentes (accións interactivas na comunidade de aprendizaxe e coñecemento sobre a disciplina ou práctica) pero de gran relevancia para proporcionar unha andamiaxe correcta. Ademais, dado que o coñecemento epistémico pode presentarse de diferentes formas na aula e isto xera resultados diferentes, a elección do enfoque implícito, explícito ou explícito-reflexivo, necesita ser un acto consciente. En relación co terceiro obxectivo de investigación, manifestamos a necesidade de establecer unha diferenciación clara entre proba e especulación e a súa validez para establecer conclusións, especialmente en contextos que potencian a imaxinación dos estudantes (Eilks et al., 2013), como é o caso do xogo de rol. Por outra parte, en contextos de toma de decisións con diferentes criterios, é importante conectar estes coas consecuencias derivadas desa elección. Desta forma, faise patente á importancia que teñen diferentes posturas para a toma de decisións do mundo real, no que a ciencia tamén xoga un importante papel (Sadler, 2009). LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 30 different sources of information through the course of the activity, whereas they tend to focus on specific criteria as the activity progresses. It is worth mentioning that the coding process for the rubrics used for publications 2 and 4 was partially developed during a three-month pre-doctoral stay in the University of Wisconsin- Madison (USA) in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and under the supervision of Dr. Leema K. Berland, which contributed to the development of the coding schemes in their initial stages. Publications 2, 3 and 4 are closely connected since: a) they are based on activities that promote students’ engagement in scientific practices, specifically argumentation (publications 2, 3 and 4) and inquiry (publication 3) and b) students’ conversations while participating in the tasks are analysed through discourse analysis (Gee & Handford, 2012). Moreover, publications 2 and 4 are based on the same argumentative activity and publications 2 and 3 both examine the epistemic knowledge involved in the development of scientific practices although from two different perspectives. The preparation of these four publications was preceded by the presentation of several proposals at national and international conferences, where some of the results were presented. In addition, the advances achieved during the thesis were presented in two summer schools. Firstly, it was presented at an early stage during at the IV Escuela de Doctorado de ÁPICE, held at the Universidade da Coruña (Spain), between the 3rd and 4th of September 2018. Secondly, it was presented at the ESERA Virtual Doctoral Network (VDN), held virtually due to the travel restrictions associated to the COVID-19 pandemic and originally scheduled to take place in the University of Oxford (UK), between the 28th of June and the 4th of July 2020. During the ESERA VDN 2020, a poster was also displayed in the virtual gallery. The conference papers developed during this thesis are presented below. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2018). Unha experiencia de seguridade alimentaria para traballar a argumentación. Communication presented in XXXI Congreso de ENCIGA, Lalín, Spain, 15th to 17th of November 2018. Crujeiras-Pérez, B. & Casas-Quiroga, L. (2019). Influence of epistemic knowledge in the development of scientific practices: the EPIS-PRACT project. Communication presented in 11th annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 1st to 3rd of July 2019. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2019). Epistemic knowledge mobilized by high school students during a role-play about food safety Communication presented in 13th International Conference for ESERA, Bologna, Italy, 26th to 30th of August 2019. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2019). Trabajando la argumentación y la indagación a través de la seguridad alimentaria. Communication presented in XVIII Encontro Nacional de Educação em Ciências (XVIII ENEC) & III International Seminar of Science Education, Porto, Portugal, 5th to 7th of September 2019. Section 1. Introduction 31 Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2019). Secondary students’ conceptions about food safety in an argumentation context (2019). Paper presented at 12th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Sevilla, Spain, 11th to 13th of November 2019. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2019). Argumentación e indagación na aula: traballando a seguridade alimentaria a través dun caso real. Communication presented in XXXII Congreso de ENCIGA, Viveiro, Spain, 14th to 16th of November 2019. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2020). Students' enactment of epistemic disciplinary knowledge in inquiry and argumentation practices in the context of a real alimentary emergency. Paper presented at 13th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, 9th to 11th of November 2020. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2020). Análisis de las justificaciones del alumnado en el uso de protocolos sobre emergencias alimentarias. Communication presented in 1er Congreso Internacional sobre Educación Científica y Problemas Relevantes para la Ciudadanía, 12nd to 13rd of November 2020. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2021). Desempeños del alumnado y uso del conocimiento epistémico en el diseño y justificación de un experimento sobre seguridad alimentaria. Communication presented in 29 Encuentros de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 10th to 12nd of February 2021. Casas-Quiroga, L. & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2021). Limitaciones asociadas al uso de conocimiento epistémico para la resolución de una emergencia alimentaria en la educación secundaria. Communication presented in XI Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias, Lisboa, Portugal, 7th to 10th of September 2021. 1.2 OBJECTIVES The main goal of this thesis is to analyse the epistemic knowledge that secondary students need for an adequate performance in the scientific practices of inquiry (analysis of scientific investigations) and argumentation (interpretation of data and evidence) when learning about food safety. In relation to this goal, students’ performances in the scientific practice of argumentation are evaluated in terms of how their use of data contributes to decision-making processes during a food emergency. The research goals and questions that guide this investigation are: RO1. To design classroom activities aimed at developing scientific practices in the context of food safety for secondary education students. This objective is addressed in publication 1, although not in a direct way, as no research question is specified in the publication. It is also indirectly addressed in publications 2, 3 and 4, which present the tasks of the final study. RQ1. Which features should meet classroom activities for promoting secondary students' engagement in scientific practices in the context of food safety? LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 32 RO2. To analyse the epistemic knowledge involved in the development of students’ inquiry and argumentation practices. This is addressed through research questions RQ2a and RQ2b, analysed in publication 2. and RQ2c and RQ2d, examined in publication 3. RQ2a. Which epistemic operations are performed by small groups of students during their conversations about solving an alimentary emergence during a role-play game? RQ2b. Which epistemic operations prevail in students’ decisions for solving an alimentary emergence during a role-play game? RQ2c. Which epistemic disciplinary knowledge do secondary students use for designing an experiment to identify the cause of an alimentary emergency? RQ2d. Which epistemic disciplinary knowledge do secondary students consider for evaluating the measures taken during the alimentary emergency? RO3. To examine students’ use of data in the scientific practice of argumentation. This is addressed through research questions RQ3a and RQ3b, which are analysed in publication 4. RQ3a. Which sources of information do students use for making a decision during a roleplay game to solve an alimentary emergence? RQ3b. Which criteria do students consider more important for making a decision during a role-play game to solve an alimentary emergence? 1.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The theoretical framework for this thesis is situated within the Epistemology of Science, and more specifically in both the social perspective and the disciplinary perspective. As the main goal of this thesis is to explore the influence of epistemic knowledge for an adequate development of scientific practices, we address beforehand the relevance of the scientific practices for learning science. To promote students’ engagement in the scientific practices of inquiry and argumentation we use a sequence of activities about food safety, a topic that is translated to the educational setting as a socio-scientific issue. This section includes the most relevant aspects of the theoretical framework, which are divided in the following sections: 1. Learning science through the engagement in scientific practices 2. The influence of epistemic knowledge for the development of scientific practices 3. Food safety as a socio-scientific issue for science learning through scientific practices 1.3.1 Learning science through the engagement in scientific practices Nowadays, there is a consensus in the scientific community about the necessity for science learning to be coherent with the processes of building scientific knowledge (Duschl & Grandy, 2013; Osborne, 2014). This is translated into educational settings through a learning approach based on the students’ engagement in scientific practices, understood as the practices used to establish, extend, and refine knowledge (NRC, 2012), which was a departure from the previous tradition of inquiry-based learning. García-Carmona (2020) mentions in its review that inquirybased learning seemed to prioritize the processes, leaving the learning of concepts unattended. Section 1. Introduction 33 He also mentions that many authors conceptualizing inquiry in different ways may have influenced this framework not being as effective for science learning as was expected. According to Reiser et al. (2012), the practices involve not only doing the work of building scientific knowledge, but also attaining an understanding of why knowledge is built, evaluated, and refined in the way in which is done. This allows students to reflect on their own understanding of scientific ideas (NASEM, 2015) as well as to develop a sense on how the scientific community builds knowledge (Reiser et al., 2012). Furthermore, the term practice in this context is regarded as intentional, as it connotes a set of activities that are developed and enacted by a community and that fill the needs and use the shared tools of its members (Berland et al., 2020). The approach of learning through scientific practices originates from policy documents from the United States of America, aimed at establishing a comprehensive framework for science education (NRC, 2012; Achieve, 2013). This framework contemplates eight fundamental practices for the science classroom, based on the work of scientists, which are: 1) Asking questions and defining problems, 2) Developing and using models, 3) Planning and carrying out investigations, 4) Analysing and interpreting data, 5) Using mathematics and computational thinking, 6) Constructing explanations and designing solutions, 7) Engaging in argument from evidence, and 8) Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. These eight practices originate from the three spheres of professional scientific activity proposed by Osborne (2011): investigating, evaluating, and developing explanations and solutions. The model proposed by Osborne also explores how the three spheres of the scientific work interact. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Crujeiras-Pérez (2017) suggest a correspondence between the three spheres of activity and the three scientific competencies evaluated in the PISA framework (OECD, 2016): evaluating and designing scientific enquiry, interpreting data and evidence scientifically and explaining phenomena scientifically, which are referred to for research purposes as inquiry, argumentation, and modelling. This implies a clear alignment with the framework that aspires to vertebrate and inform European educational curricula. According to the 2015 PISA framework (2016), which focused on science, inquiry entails describing and evaluating scientific investigations and proposing ways of addressing questions scientifically; argumentation involves evaluating scientific data, claims and arguments to elaborate warranted conclusions and modelling entails recognising, offering, and evaluating explanations for a series of natural and technological phenomena. The three of them are required to attain scientific literacy, meaning that a person possesses the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen. Similarly, Roberts and Bybee (2014) state that a scientifically literate person should be able to understand the impact of science and technology on everyday life, and as such, they should be able to make informed decisions about scientific-related issues. This becomes even more important with the growing concerns about the spread of misinformation that contradicts established scientific findings, being the common assumption that scientific literacy helps to address this issue and also to improve informed decision-making at the individual and collective level (Howell & Brossard, 2021). After underlining the importance of scientific practices in achieving scientific literacy, the following sections will focus on the scientific practices of inquiry and argumentation separately, LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 34 since both are examined in this thesis and require a differentiate set of skills, although they can overlap in some cases (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Crujeiras-Pérez, 2017). 1.3.1.1 The argumentation practice Argumentation, understood as a scientific practice, consists of evaluating claims on the basis of evidence, and therefore acknowledging that scientific statements need to be supported by evidence, and thus justified (Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2010). In this sense, knowledge claims can be individually or interactionally constructed and evaluated considering empirical or theoretical evidence (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). The PISA 2015 framework (OECD, 2016) provides a more extensive conceptualization, by addressing the different requirements for students to be competent in the practice of argumentation such as distinguishing between arguments based on scientific evidence and those who are not, evaluating scientific arguments and evidence from different sources or interpreting data in order to draw appropriate conclusions. This framework recognises that argumentation entails the identification of appropriate or flawed connections between evidence and conclusions. This is in line with how Duschl et al. (2007) conceive argumentation, a logical and rational form of discourse oriented at finding the relationship between ideas and evidence. In the last decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on the key role that language, discourse, and argumentation play in both the personal and social construction of scientific knowledge (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Lemke, 1990). As a result, argumentation in science education has been extensively studied. Argumentation has been addressed in educational contexts through two different and interrelated perspectives (Konstantinidou & Macagno, 2012): 1) dialogical approach, which focuses on the existing reasoning to support a claim; and 2) structural approach, that focuses on the construction of arguments in terms of its formal structure. This means that these perspectives have different objectives in relation to the proper construction of arguments. Under a dialogical perspective, it is understood that a good argument is generated when evidence is provided to support a certain position, or comparisons are made between different positions from a critical stance (Osborne, 2010; Kuhn, 2019). Under the other perspective, a good argument must have a series of components, for which models are developed to identify them, such as Toulmin’s argument pattern (1958). Some authors highlight in their studies the social nature of argumentation (Kolstø & Radcliffe, 2007; Berland & Reiser, 2009; Chinn & Osborne, 2010). In this sense scientific argumentation is considered a social practice in which the members of a community make sense of a phenomena through discourse. According to Kolstø and Radcliffe (2007), the goal for scientific argumentation is to contribute to the collective evaluation of scientific knowledge claims and to the identification of consensual and reliable depictions of natural phenomena. Similarly, Berland and Reiser (2009) identify three overlapping goals for argumentation which are: making sense of the phenomena being studied, articulating these understandings and persuading others (p.29). The first goal is more closely related to interpreting data and constructing explanations, the second one involves presenting arguments and the third one entails considering counterarguments and defending one’s stance. This view coincides to a great extent with the way in which the practice of argumentation was promoted through the activities examined in this thesis, especially in the argumentative role-play. It is worth considering that scientists need to convince others that their evidence is relevant and of high quality to the Section 1. Introduction 35 phenomena being studied to generate a strong argument, and that as a result, a great amount of time is allocated to evaluate the evidence used to support or challenge a claim (Sampson et al., 2013), something that can be related to Berland and Reiser’ (2009) goals for argumentation. The benefits from engaging in argumentation processes, as well as the challenges encountered, are well documented in the literature. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Erduran (2007) identified five potential contributions for introducing argumentation in the science classroom, which they related to their corresponding theoretical perspectives. Among these contributions are improvements in communicative competences, particularly critical thinking, as well as in developing epistemic criteria and achieving scientific literacy. Focusing specifically on the processes of knowledge construction and evaluation, the practice of argumentation offers students opportunities to engage in them, as these processes require, for example, being aware that a claim exists among a series of possibilities that can be compared through evidence (Ford, 2012), the use of criteria for distinguishing between good or bad arguments (Zohar & Nemet, 2002), the use of criteria for the selection and evaluation of evidence, the provision of justifications and the construction of counterarguments (Christodoulou & Osborne, 2014), identifying appropriate means of reconciling contrasting claims (Kuhn et al., 2017) or the evaluation of arguments constructed by others and their quality (Ryu & Sandoval, 2012). It is also relevant to address the challenges that students face when engaging in the scientific practice of argumentation. Sampson et al. (2013) mention the challenges that were considered in the Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), including the inability to understand the difference between data and evidence or to transform data into evidence, a confirmation bias that generates a tendency to seek out data to support own’s ideas while ignoring the rest, making generalizations with very limited information and not justifying the evidence provided by making it explicit to others or discussing how this evidence is grounded on the scientific body of knowledge. Some authors have linked the difficulties that students experience while engaging in argumentation to the modification of established discourse practices in the classroom (Berland & Reiser, 2010; Ryu & Sandoval, 2012). It was also reported that students tend to ignore data when they contradict their ideas, going as far as reinterpret evidence to match an inaccurate claim, rather than revising the claim in the first place (Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn et al., 2000). It has also been found that shortcomings for an adequate development of the practice of argumentation relate to how students wrongly interpret data (Acar et al., 2010) and to insufficient evidence being incorporated to warrant a claim (Sandoval & Millwood, 2005). A review on the existing literature about classroom interventions tackling the argumentation practice indicates that argumentation has been studied extensively in recent years. Some of these studies focus on examining students’ ability to produce arguments. Dawson and Venville (2009) used Toulmin’s argument pattern (1958) and informal reasoning patterns as a framework and found that most students use no data or very simple data to justify their claims. Evagorou and Osborne (2013) studied collaborative argumentation about socioscientific issues and determined that this context does not provide on its own students’ engagement in argumentation. Erduran et al. (2004) also used Toulmin’s argument pattern (1958) to monitor the differences between argumentative discourse in small groups or with the whole class. Other studies explored the needs for teaching support for an adequate engagement in argumentation. For example, Simmoneaux (2001) compared the impact of a role-play and a conventional discussion and concluded that the teacher needs to play an active role at the end LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 36 of the debate by asking reflective questions aimed at improving students’ awareness on the role and limits of scientific knowledge. Additionally, Duschl and Osborne (2002) argued that conditions for supporting argumentation depend on the use of evidence in the process of constructing and evaluating explanations. In the Spanish context, there are also many studies that promote students’ engagement in argumentation in the science classroom at the secondary level. For example, Ruiz et al. (2013) found that socio-scientific debate contributes to improve high-school students’ performance in argumentation, notably in written discourse. Paz Otero and Puig (2020) pointed out a mutual and beneficial relationships between modeling and argumentations practices after implementing a sequence about external geodynamics and environmental and heritage controversies. Oliveras Prat and Marquez Bargalló (2013) analysed how students from different age groups and science backgrounds identified scientific ideas about global warming in a press report and incorporated evidence to elaborate an argumentative essay, finding significant differences in their performances. Moreover, González Picáns and Puig (2017) introduced a sequence of activities based on a local environmental problem and found that participants had difficulties in incorporating empirical and observational data to their arguments and in critically analysing the information provided on the causes of the problem. Blanco Anaya and Díaz de Bustamante (2014) used Toulmin’s argument pattern (1958) to examine students’ reasoning process through argumentation in an activity about footprints and found that they were able to make inferences about what happened as well as constructing complex arguments. Nevertheless, this thesis project contributes to the body of knowledge of argumentation in the science classroom in the sense that it identifies situated facets of epistemic cognition when students engage in argumentation in authentic settings (Chinn et al., 2014). By identifying these key aspects, we hope to elucidate how to properly prompt epistemic knowledge in the students’ discourse. 1.3.1.2 The inquiry practice Inquiry involves a set of activities that relate to empirical investigation (NRC, 2012), for example determining what needs to be measured, observe phenomena, planning experiments with attention to the observations and data collection, building instruments and identifying sources of uncertainty. This implies identifying the data that needs to be recorded and sometimes establishing the differences between dependent and independent variables for an experiment (OECD, 2019). It is important to mention that the array of data and observations related to a specific phenomenon serves to two different purposes. On one hand, testing existing theories and explanations and on the other hand, revising and developing new ones. Inquiry is not only limited to that, as it also seeks to formulating questions about phenomena, or determining the ones that must be studied. The PISA 2015 framework (OECD, 2016) describes inquiry as designing and evaluating scientific investigations, as well as proposing and evaluating ways to study questions scientifically. The duality between designing and evaluating scientific investigations implies that students have to get involved with the operations related to planning scientific investigations and conduct experiments but also recognising these features and its adequacy in given scientific experiments. The same is true for proposing and evaluating the different ways in which an issue can be studied scientifically, as it is essential to make proposals on how to study a given question, but also to evaluate the ones that have already been made. Taking this Section 1. Introduction 37 into account inquiry is required to assess the reports on scientific findings critically (McNeill, & Krajcik, 2008) and entails knowledge of the key features in scientific investigations such as what things have to be measured, what variables have to be controlled and how to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data collected. It is relevant to address the implications that engaging in inquiry poses for students as well as the challenges faced when implementing proposals based on this approach. Cuevas et al. (2005) report an increase in the students’ ability for asking appropriate questions and designing investigations, as well as drawing conclusions. Llewellyn (2013) mentions the development of skills such as critical thinking, reasoning and habits employed while conducting scientific investigations. Crujeiras-Pérez and Jiménez-Aleixandre (2017) identify a positive evolution on the students’ designs for carrying out an investigation. These authors also describe improvements in data analysis and interpretation skills based on students' reaction to the presence of anomalous data (Crujeiras-Pérez & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2019). Engaging in inquiry also supports students in interpreting and analysing data to support their reasoning, while actively explaining different phenomena first-hand (Krajcik, 2015) and in understanding the multiple causes that can contribute to an outcome (Kuhn et al., 2017). This approach is of course met with several challenges that also have to be considered for an adequate engagement of students in the scientific practice of inquiry. Krajcik et al. (1998) mention that students experience difficulties formulating appropriate research questions and developing plans to investigate them, while Zimmerman (2000) states that challenges are met in designing experiments and interpreting their results. Additionally, Lin and Chang (2018) assert that students often miss the mark on understanding the role of ideas and the theorybuilding nature of science, reducing its purpose to merely doing activities such as collecting data or testing variables. However, it is relevant to note that not all the elements that characterize scientific inquiry can be incorporated in a 50-minute class or even over a longer period of time (Grandy & Duschl, 2008). Inquiry tasks in the classroom do not need to exactly reproduce professional scientific inquiry, but students should actively participate in constructing investigations to address questions that they have identified as deserving attention in order to move closer to scientific reasoning processes (Reiser et al., 2001). This view is coincidental with the design of the activity in this thesis that promotes students’ participation in the scientific practice of inquiry. This activity focuses on a narrower set of elements for conducting an investigation but emphasises elements of scientific reasoning related to inquiry when addressing a real-life event. In relation to teaching instruction, there are also challenges, since teachers in addition to students seem to have a tendency to view inquiry as a set of fixed procedures that do not require a justification and can be used repeatedly for different investigations in the exact same ways (Watson et al., 2004). Amos et al. (2020) mention that it is important to provide an adequate scaffolding when teaching science through inquiry in socio-scientific settings, as students struggle with developing appropriate data collection instruments and with analysing data. This relates to how scientific inquiry is often translated to the classroom, as oversimplified inquiry hands-on tasks that have little resemblance to authentic scientific reasoning (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), which is coincidental with. Therefore, teaching science through inquiry involves providing students with opportunities to understand and develop the skills needed to design and conduct scientific investigations, while learning science content knowledge (Bybee, 2000). For LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 38 example, when students engage in investigations designed for making decisions during planning and implementation stages, they are directly involved in finding out what does and does not work (Duschl & Bybee, 2014). These authors argue that setting different groups that share how they tackled the investigation leads to the refinement of investigation plans and reconsiderations that contribute to develop students’ understanding on how scientific knowledge is generated, refined, and justified. In contrast to the argumentation practice, there are less interventions that explore how secondary students engage in inquiry in the science classroom. In the Spanish context, Crujeiras-Pérez & Jiménez-Aleixandre (2017) examined the evolution of secondary students' performances in planning investigations. These authors also analysed students’ interpretation of data, notably anomalous results, in a set of five inquiry-based tasks and found an improved capacity for monitoring these data in the last tasks, in comparison with the first ones (Crujeiras- Pérez & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2019). Domènech Casal (2014) examined how students sorted out seven questions related to the indirect measure of a magnitude and described the potential of this strategy to identify misconceptions as well as the relevance of a proper scaffolding to promote scientific skills. González Rodríguez and Crujeiras Pérez (2016) analysed students’ performances in two inquiry-based activities about chemical reactions and concluded that students experienced difficulties in planning the investigation. In this thesis, the epistemic knowledge necessary for an adequate performance of students in both inquiry and argumentation practices is examined, so the following section explores how this type of knowledge is essential for scientific practices and how two different perspectives on epistemology contribute to gain more insight for an adequate learning through scientific practices. 1.3.2 The influence of epistemic knowledge for the development of scientific practices Epistemic knowledge has been studied in the last decades because of its implication in the students’ approaches to learning science, as well as to their performances of scientific reasoning (Yang et al., 2018; Yang & Tsai, 2010). There are also studies that examine the sophistication of students’ epistemic understanding of scientific knowledge, such as Lin’s (2021). However, questions still remain about what criteria are appropriate to judge the adequacy of epistemic knowledge in a specific context or between contexts (Greene et al., 2016). Epistemic knowledge is defined as the understanding of the role of the specific constructs that are involved in the production of knowledge and of the essential features of the knowledgebuilding processes (Duschl, 2008). In Science Education, the relevance of epistemic knowledge is reflected with its incorporation to the PISA survey 2015 framework as a type of knowledge to be assessed, apart from content knowledge and procedural knowledge (OECD, 2016). The PISA 2018 science framework (OECD, 2019) maintains a key role for epistemic knowledge in all the three scientific competencies necessary to be considered a science literate person. In this framework, epistemic knowledge is defined as “the understanding of the rationale for the common practices of scientific inquiry, the status of the knowledge claims that are generated, and the meaning of foundational terms, such as theory, hypothesis and data” (OECD, 2019, p. 99). According to this framework, this type of knowledge involves an understanding of the function that questions, observations, theories, hypotheses, models and arguments play in science; a recognition of the variety of forms of scientific inquiry; and the role peer review plays in establishing knowledge that can be trusted. It should be noted that the PISA 2018 Section 1. Introduction 39 Framework did not focus on science, hence the greater use of the previous 2015 framework. However, in this case, we decided to provide the latest definition for epistemic knowledge, in order to guarantee that it is updated. In short, epistemic knowledge is relevant for science education since a higher level of epistemic knowledge results in a more productive learning about scientific practices and contents (Crujeiras-Pérez & Brocos, 2021). The role of epistemic knowledge in the scientific practices has been already discussed in the Epistemologies in Practice (EIP) framework (Berland et al., 2016) which states that successful learning using an approach based on scientific practices does not depend on the practices exclusively, but also on the epistemic knowledge involved in them. This framework also makes a case for making scientific practices meaningful to both the scientific and the classroom community, which entails aligning the goals for scientific sensemaking and students’ ways of building knowledge. This is in line with the assertions made by Osborne (2014), who points out that the value of engaging in scientific practices appears when: a) students develop a deeper and broader understanding of what we know, how we know and the epistemic and procedural constructs that guide science; b) such knowledge is developed in a more effective manner and c) it presents a more authentic picture of the endeavour that is science. In line with this, Kuhn et al. (2017) state the significance of scientific practices fostering the understanding of the epistemological foundation of science, as scientific claims need to be situated in a framework of alternatives that require evidence to establish over another. It is difficult to conceive how a scientific claim can prevail over other alternatives without a deep understanding of the processes that make that idea more reliable in the first place. This idea is similar to what Ford (2008) says about what it means to attain a ‘grasp of practice’, which is the convergence between the construction of claims and the awareness for needing to critique those claims during the reasoning process. Additionally, Sandoval (2005) states that in contemporary and democratic societies, citizens need to understand the nature of scientific knowledge and scientific practices to be able to participate in policy decisions that incorporate science topics and to interpret how new scientific discoveries are meaningful for their lives. Furthermore, a limited epistemic understanding of science has an effect on students being less motivated to learn it, as they may not understand how to produce and improve evidence-based ideas or construct a new idea based on existing ones (Lin & Chang, 2018). Although a broader definition of epistemic knowledge has been provided, studies of science learning conceptualise epistemology in different ways that serve to different purposes (Kelly et al., 2012): 1) The disciplinary perspective, that focuses on the different ways that history and philosophy of science have informed learning; 2) the social perspective, that focuses on how knowledge is established interactionally in learning contexts; and 3) the personal perspective, that focuses on how the epistemological beliefs of students influence learning. These authors also point out that these different views are not exclusive, aiming instead at informing science learning in different ways while placing emphasis on certain aspects of epistemic knowledge. In this thesis, students’ conversations in activities that promote their engagement in inquiry and argumentation practices are examined from the disciplinary and the social perspective. 1.3.2.1 Disciplinary epistemic knowledge This perspective emerges from the philosophy of science, through debates on the nature of scientific knowledge and its alignment with truth and reality (Driver et al., 1996) LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 46 our study contributes to advance in this direction, as it explores two different facets of epistemic cognition (disciplinary epistemic aspects and epistemic practices) in an inquiry and argumentation-based setting. 1.4 METHODOLOGY The thesis is framed in qualitative research, focusing on examining the epistemic knowledge (at the level of epistemic practices and disciplinary epistemic aspects) performed by secondary students in the science classroom when engaging in the scientific practices of inquiry and argumentation. Among the different approaches to qualitative methodology, our study falls within the case study. The implementation of the final sequence of activities was carried out with two groups of students from 10th and 11th grade in the subject of Biology. The whole study comprises two pilot studies, conducted to test and improve the sequence, and the abovementioned final study. All of these aspects will be described in detail hereafter. This section is organised as follows. Firstly, the methodological approach in which the thesis is situated is discussed. Secondly, the context and the participants. Thirdly, the design of the sequence of activities, with emphasis on those of the final study, which is the subject matter in this thesis. Fourthly, we present the tools for data collection and analysis. Lastly, the ethical considerations for the study are presented. 1.4.1 Methodological Approach. Qualitative research. This study is framed in qualitative research, which focuses on the processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured in terms of quantity, intensity, or frequency (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). According to Yin (2011), qualitative research needs to take into consideration contextual conditions as well as to aim to provide an insight on existing or emerging concepts that explain social behaviour. The educational processes that constitute this study, namely the creation of an experimental design based on concrete data and its subsequent evaluation or the decision-making processes that take place during the role-play game occur through the social interaction of the participants, which implies that these processes must be studied in depth to make sense of them. Assuming that knowledge is established through subjective experiences, consideration of the context in which they occur is essential to understand the participants' meanings (Cresswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Denzin and Lincoln (2018), "qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. [...] This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them" (p.43). Snape and Spencer (2003), mention that qualitative research requires objectives aimed at providing an in-depth understanding of the social world of the participants through the study of their circumstances, experiences and perspectives, as well as an analysis open to emerging concepts and ideas capable of producing detailed descriptions, identifying patterns by association or generating explanations. This is especially relevant for our study, since epistemic knowledge is examined for the most part in an implicit way, that is, without involving the students neither in the categorization of this knowledge nor in its importance for the development of the scientific practices. For this reason, it is essential to detect emergent patterns in the conversations that take place, to identify the epistemic knowledge that seems to be present but also to detect the absence of epistemic knowledge that influences an adequate students’ engagement in scientific practices. Section 1. Introduction 47 Aspers and Corte (2019) provide a definition for qualitative research consistent with what has been said above. Namely, they define it as “an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied”. It is important to emphasize the vision of this type of research as an iterative process, in which the vision of the object of study is not static, but the meanings emerge as more knowledge is gained about it. Among the different approaches or variations to qualitative research our project is framed into the case study strategy. According to Yin (2011), the case study explores a phenomenon (the case) in its real context. To situate ourselves in a more specific definition of this methodological strategy, we adopt Yin’s (2003), according to whom "a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the object of study and context are not clearly evident" (p.13). There are common characteristics for the case study mentioned by several authors such as its suitability for conducting a holistic and in-depth investigation of a complex phenomenon (Gerring, 2007; Yin, 2003) and the incorporation of varied methods to data collection and analysis in order to investigate phenomena in real contexts (Simons, 2009). In this research, the case study is delimited by the groups of students whose conversations are analysed with the objective of examining the epistemic knowledge involved in their performance when engaging in scientific practices. These conversations, in the educational context in which they occur, constitute a particular case. A case study is indeed expected to capture the complexity of a single case, and although the methodology that enables this has developed within the social sciences, it can be applied in many other fields that entail a practiceoriented dimension such as education (Johansson, 2007). Stake (1995) makes a very interesting distinction between the intrinsic case study and instrumental case study. In the first one, the case represents a unique situation, deserving to be studied and aiming at providing a particular insight. In the second one, the case intends to inform other situations. The aim of this thesis project is aligned with the instrumental case study, but always taking into consideration the limitations of the case study, which are discussed in this section hereafter. It is relevant to address the limitations of the case study. The most prevalent criticism for this type of methodological approaches is its inability to provide data that is generalisable to other studies and contexts (Cohen et al., 2007). Schoch (2019) elaborates on this, stating that the case study provides a comprehensive understanding of a defined unit and also leads to transferability, distinguishing this term from the generalisation that occurs in quantitative studies, which is unattainable for the case study. Nevertheless, there are strategies that can be used to improve the validity of the results obtained with a methodological approach based on the case study. Yin (2011) suggests applying triangulation in terms of collecting different sources of data, something that has been done in this study by assembling: 1) the audio and video recordings of each session; 2) the written reports elaborated by the students for each of the tasks; and 3) the researcher field notes. However, triangulation can be applied in several different ways throughout the case study. In our study, two pilot studies are conducted before the final intervention, making the necessary modifications after analysing the data obtained in each of the pilot studies. According to Malmqvist et al. (2019), the focus of the pilot study is to identify the necessity to modify questions or other procedures that do no elicit appropriate LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 48 responses or enable researchers to obtain rich data. We agree with this vision, as the process of designing the final sequence of activities required major modifications highlighted by both pilot studies. Furthermore, the author and the supervisor of the thesis analysed the data separately before contrasting the results and discussing differences in the interpretation of the data, which ensured reliability. Moreover, an external international expert intervened to refine the coding scheme in the two of the analysis: epistemic practices (publication 2) and sources of information and criteria (publication 4). 1.4.2 Participants and context The context and participants of the final study are explained in detail below, preceded by a briefer account of the pilot studies. The following table summarises the characteristics of the three studies, to serve as a guide. Table 1.1 Context and participants in the pilot and final studies Pilot Study 1 Pilot Study 2 Final Study Schools and classrooms 1 school, 2 classrooms 1 school, 2 classrooms 1 school, 2 classrooms Subjects, grades and participants Applied science for professional activity (10th grade, 9 students) Scientific Culture (11th grade, 7 students) Applied science for professional activity (10th grade, 9 students) Scientific Culture (11th grade, 8 students) Biology (10th grade, 13 students) (11th grade, 14 students) 1.4.2.1 Pilot studies It has been mentioned that two pilot studies were carried out prior to the final study. These were conducted in two different public schools located in urban areas of the same city in Galicia. Both studies involved the participation of two classes of students of the same ages, but in different subjects. In the two pilot studies, the students in 10th grade were taking the subject Applied Sciences for Professional Activity and those in the 11th grade were taking Scientific Culture. The change of subject between the pilot studies and the final study was primarily motivated by the need to increase the number of participants in the same class in order to work in several small groups. As shown in table 1.1, the number of students in each class in both pilot studies is less than ten participants. Another reason was the necessity to incorporate participants with a stronger background in science through secondary education, as food safety entails some difficulties already mentioned in the theoretical framework that mostly relate with this topic being an understudied issue in classroom settings. 1.4.2.2 Final study The context in which the final study of this thesis has been conducted is a secondary public school in inner Galicia (Spain). The school is located in a medium-sized town, more specifically in a semi-urban setting. It receives students from both the town and the surrounding villages. The students' families have a diverse socio-cultural background. This secondary school was chosen for the final study because of the researcher's previous familiarity with it, having established contact after conducting two pilot studies in two other schools. Section 1. Introduction 49 The participants were two classes of Biology and Geology students. The first class was composed of 13 students in 4º de ESO (equivalent to 10th grade) aged 15-16 years old and the second one was composed of 14 students in 1º de BAC (equivalent to 11th grade) aged 16-17 years old. Therefore, the total number of participants in the study was 27 students (N=27). From now on, 10th and 11th grade will be used to indicate the classes and ages of the participants. It has to be noted that in publications 2, 3 and 4, the ones that refer to the final sequence of activities, the conversations that are examined do not always include both grades. Publications 2 and 4 analyse the conversations between the students from 11th grade whereas publication 3 examines the conversations between 10th and 11th grade students. Although there was not an interview with the teachers in the strict sense of the word, a previous meeting was conducted in the school with the teachers from both classes and with the principal in order to explain the implementation of the sequence of activities, consult its adequacy and solve possible doubts about it. There was also a consultation on the need to adapt the tasks taking into account the needs of the participants. It is important to note that the regular teachers of both classes in the subject of Biology and Geology did not carry out the implementation of the sequence of activities of the study, since they had no previous familiarity with addressing scientific practices in the classroom. This role was assumed by the researcher. In any case, the nature of the activities presented, which are described in the following section, allowed both the implementation and observation of the study to be carried out without any problems, providing the students with the necessary support. 1.4.3 Design of the sequence This section describes the whole process of designing and implementing the sequence of activities that comprise this thesis, which is summarised is figure 1.1. This figure illustrates the timing, as well as the design, implementation and analysis of the sequence of food safety activities in the pilot studies and in the final study. When describing the activities, special emphasis is placed on activities 2 and 3 of the final study, which are examined in publications 2, 3 and 4. The sequences of activities of the two pilot studies are also discussed to a lesser extent. The shortcomings on the design of the sequences in relation to the pilot studies and the modifications that were made will be discussed in relation to the first research objective of this thesis. LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 50 Figure 1.1 Project timing The design principles for the sequence of activities are presented below. The central goal of the sequence is to promote students’ engagement in the scientific practices of inquiry (design of scientific investigations) and argumentation (evaluation of knowledge based on evidence). As this engagement needs to be meaningful for students the sequence promotes epistemic talk, offering students opportunities to participate in conversations on how knowledge is built and validated. This is addressed in the context of food safety, transferred to the classroom as a socioscientific issue. Within this area we focus more specifically on the importance of protocols for health protection, food-borne diseases and the management of resources to deal with food-borne illnesses. First, an overview of the pilot studies and the final study is shown in figure 1.2 in relation to the sequence of activities (A), the sessions (S) dedicated for the implementation of each Section 1. Introduction 51 activity, and the completion of the tasks either individually or in small groups. The final study stems from the improvements and modifications introduced as a result of the implementation of the pilot studies and the analysis of the results obtained in both. PILOT STUDY 1 PILOT STUDY 2 FINAL STUDY Figure 1.2 Overview of the teaching sequence in the pilot and final studies. Legend: A: activities; S: sessions The teaching sequence of the first pilot study included four activities that focused solely on the scientific practice of argumentation. This sequence incorporated an individual analysis of a real food poisoning event in a school setting (A1a) and the safety measures taken as a result (A2a), followed by the joint construction of the WHO protocol for public health emergencies from its nine different steps (A3a) and the presentation of a real event where mistakes were made (A4a), which allowed to make comparisons with the previously constructed protocol. The teaching sequence of the second pilot study included one activity that worked as an initial assessment on the matter of food safety, while the three remaining ones focused again on the scientific practice of argumentation. More specifically, this sequence consisted of a first activity where students were asked to mention all the topics that they believed were associated with food safety, with a subsequent discussion on the matter, in order to clarify the scope of food safety and the areas associated with it (A1b). The following activity was the construction of the WHO protocol from its nine steps (A2b). The next one consisted of comparing the elaborated protocol with another one with mistakes elaborated by students and the real one, focusing on their differences and how they translate to a better response to an emergency (A3b). A1a: reading and analysing a press report about food poisoning in a school A2a: analysing the safety measures implemented in during the food poisoning situation A3a: constructing the WHO protocol for public health emergencies A4a: analysing the efficiency of the WHO protocol during a real emergency A1b: introducing the concept of food safety and pooling related concepts A2b: constructing the WHO protocol for public health emergencies A3b: evaluating and comparing the WHO protocol constructed in T2 A4b: decisionmaking during a role-play game about a disease outbreak A1: introducing the concept of food safety, related concepts, analysing population profiles and debating related scientific advances A2: designing an experiment to determine the cause of a real disease outbreak and evaluating the real measures A3: decision-making during a role-play game about a disease outbreak S1, individual S1, individual S2, small group S2, small group S1, small group S2, small group S1, small group S3, S4, small group S1, small group S2, small group S3, S4, small group LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 52 The last activity of this sequence consisted of a role-play game where students had to make decisions in order to find the cause and manage the resources for solving a fictional food-borne disease outbreak (A4b). The teaching sequence for the final study consisted of one activity that worked as an initial assessment on the matter of food safety and also focused on argumentation demanding justifications for the population profiles (A1), a second activity that focused on the scientific practices of inquiry and argumentation (A2) and a third one that focused on argumentation (A3). It is important to mention the reason why the WHO protocol activity, carried out in the two pilot studies, was discarded for the final study. Although this activity provided some opportunity to engage in argumentation, it was considered insufficient as it did not promote the use of epistemic knowledge. The activity relied on the comparison between the steps of the protocol and how they relate to dealing with an emergency, but without a deep reflection on the validity of the steps and why they are selected in the first place. This implies a lack of understanding of how this knowledge is constructed. Hereafter, the activities of the final study are presented. Activity 1 is only briefly discussed, as it is not examined in this thesis. However, objectives 2 and 3 of the thesis are addressed through the students’ involvement in activities 2 and 3. The handouts of the activities are reproduced in the appendix. Activity 1. Introducing food safety. This activity was designed to provide students with some understanding of the concept of food safety and the different areas related to it. It was conducted in one session. First of all, the small groups of students were asked which known concepts they could associate food safety with, and then they were asked to share them with the rest of the class to see which coincidences were found between the different groups. This allowed to reflect on the areas that have a relation to food safety. Then the broader construct of food security was introduced, namely its four pillars, or in other words the four conditions that have to be met for food security to be guaranteed. These four conditions are availability, access, utilization and stability (Helland & Sørbø, 2014). After a depiction of the characteristics of each pillar, students were presented with four characters, aiming at representing different population profiles, accompanied by a brief description about this character's experience with food in their day-to- day life. Students were asked to establish and justify if these characters find themselves (or not) in a food security situation, based on the fulfilment of the four conditions presented above. More specifically, there was one character for whom all four conditions were met, as her decision not to eat certain foods was based on dietary choices. However, other characters were not in the same situation for different reasons, whether economic, social, physical or related to a disease requiring specific foods. This allowed to situate food safety within a context where food-related challenges are connected to many other factors besides the risks associated with food consumption. Lastly, each group was asked about the scientific advances that could influence the improvement of food security, followed by a whole class discussion on the different proposals and their implications. The conversations of the students during this activity are not included in the publications in this thesis. Nonetheless, it is worth reflecting on the relevance of including this activity in the sequence. Given that food safety is not a specific curricular content and students are not Section 1. Introduction 53 familiar with this topic, we considered it necessary to elaborate an introductory activity that provides the basis for an effective participation in scientific practices, as this requires a combination of conceptual, procedural and epistemic knowledge (Duschl, 2008). Activity 2. Analysing a real case of a food-borne outbreak. This activity was framed in the field of food-borne diseases and required students to engage in inquiry and argumentation practices. It was conducted in one session and was divided in two phases. In the design phase, students were asked to design an experiment in order to find the real cause of an outbreak. This required selecting the food-related samples that need to be collected and an adequate human body sample from six available options to make a comparison, as well as indicating the strain of E. coli bacteria causing the outbreak. As students were required to provide a justification for each choice, they were given the following documents to be able to do so: a) the first half of a chronology, which recounted the real-life events of the hemolyticuremic syndrome outbreak in Germany in 2011 (based on the real timeline of events, recollected through press reports); b) a medical report on a person admitted to the hospital experiencing the symptoms of the disease (based on the real onset of symptoms of the uremic-hemolytic syndrome) and c) information on the different strains of pathogenic E. coli bacteria (cells they affect, symptoms they can cause and most common areas and population they affect). After making their choices for designing the experiment students were asked if designing an investigation before conducting it was important, and what were the reasons for the relevance of the experimental design. The first phase of the activity required students to engage in the scientific practice of inquiry, namely in relation to the design of investigations. In the evaluation phase, students were asked to assess the real outcome of the uremichemolytic outbreak in Germany, in relation to the decisions that were made by the government agencies. Students were asked to indicate if these decisions were appropriate from a scientific stance. In order to be able to do so, students were given the following documents: a) the second half of the chronology, that narrated how the outbreak was resolved and its consequences and b) the WHO protocol for public health emergencies of international concern, whose steps were indicated and explained. The second phase of the activity required students to engage in the scientific practices of inquiry, taking into account the previous experimental design to address the outcome of the outbreak, and argumentation, to evaluate the government’s actions in accordance with the real events and the WHO protocol. Figure 1.3 depicts the information that was provided at each stage of the activity. LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 54 Figure 1.3 Information provided in the two stages of the second activity in the final study The conversations of the students during this activity are analysed in publication 3 of this thesis, examining the epistemic disciplinary knowledge that students take into consideration in each phase of the activity. Activity 3. Decision-making to solve Setrocia’s alimentary emergency. This activity was framed in the field of food-borne diseases and required students to engage in argumentation in order to make decisions in a role-play game about an emergency of initially unknown cause. The role-play was conducted in two sessions. First, each small group of students was randomly assigned to one of the three districts of a fictional country, Setrocia. Each district controlled five different resources, such as fishing, pharmaceutical industry, railway transport, telecommunications or food industry. Following an outbreak of unknown origin in district 2, students were asked to find the cause of the disease (which was linked to one of the resources) and to solve the problems associated with the outbreak in whatever way they felt was most appropriate through the activation and deactivation of resources. Despite this, students were advised not to make decisions without taking into account any information, as there could be consequences for the population of Setrocia. The dynamics of the role-play were based on rounds that were divided into: a) a small group discussion among members of the same district to make a proposal on which resources to activate or deactivate and b) a general debate with the whole class in which the proposals were presented and a shared decision was made. Students had to take into consideration some rules established by the role-play such as: a) the role-play continues until the cause of the outbreak is detected (meaning that the corresponding resource is deactivated), b) in each round a maximum of two resources can be activated and one resource can be deactivated, c) for deactivations, the final decision is to be made by the district that the specific resource belongs to, d) deactivating a resource means stopping all the activity related to it (for example, Chronology WHO protocol INQUIRY (Design Phase) INQUIRY and ARGUMENTATION (Evaluation Phase) Chronology Medical report Information E. coli Section 1. Introduction 55 deactivating railway transport means that all trains are unable to run in Setrocia) but activating a resource means carrying out an specific action related to that resource that has to be indicated. Students received information to consider in the role-play at the very start of the game and at the end of each round after making their joint decision on what resources deactivate or activate. The decisions that students made during the role-play determined some of the information that they received to continue, but not entirely. For example, at the end of round one, there was information that students received no matter what (an increase in reported cases of the disease, spread of the disease to different areas…) but they received different additional information if they decided to activate the pharmaceutical industry to investigate the disease rather than if they activated telecommunications to alert the population about the outbreak. Figure 1.4 briefly depicts the dynamics of the role play and at what stage information is received. Figure 1.4 Organization of the rounds and information in the role-play The conversations of the students during this activity are analysed in publications 2 and 4 of this thesis, examining the epistemic operations representative of epistemic practices that students perform during their involvement in the role-play (publication 2) and the sources of information and criteria that students take into consideration in their decision-making processes for solving the emergency (publication 4). 1.4.4 Tools for data collection and analysis 1.4.4.1 Data collection Although this section describes the data collection process for the final study, it should be noted that the process was identical for the pilot studies in terms of the role of the researcher and the instruments for data collection. The data collection took place during the course of the four sessions in which the activity sequence for the final study was implemented. The researcher adopted the role of a participant observer, as the teachers in the final study were not familiar with the scientific practices approach and the food safety topic. However, the activities in the final sequence do not require a great deal of teaching intervention, but rather clarification of the dynamics of the tasks, especially in the role-play. This allowed to conduct the observation of the sessions without any complications. In this way, the participation of the researcher was limited to carry out the necessary actions to implement the sequence and also to solve the doubts that resulted from this ROUND 2 DECISION and NEW INFORMATION ROUND 1 DECISION and NEW INFORMATION Small group discussion General debate Small group discussion General debate RULES AND PRELIMINARY INFORMATION LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 94 2.3 PUBLICATION 3. EPISTEMIC KNOWLEDGE CONSIDERED BY SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS INVOLVED IN THE EXAMINATION OF A REAL ALIMENTARY EMERGENCY This paper, published in Journal of Biological Education, examines the epistemic disciplinary knowledge that students take into consideration when designing an experiment and addressing the outcome of a real food emergency, an activity that promotes students’ engagement in inquiry and argumentation. Casas-Quiroga, L., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2021). Epistemic knowledge considered by secondary school students involved in the examination of a real alimentary emergency. Journal of Biological Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.2012230 Section 2. Publications 109 2.4 PUBLICATION 4. TRABAJANDO LA RESPUESTA ANTE ENFERMEDADES DE ORIGEN ALIMENTARIO A TRAVÉS DEL JUEGO DE ROL This paper, published in Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, analyses the sources of information and criteria that students consider in the decision-making processes that take place during the roleplay. Casas-Quiroga, L., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2022). Trabajando la respuesta ante enfermedades de origen alimentario a través del juego de rol. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, 40(1), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3327 3. DISCUSSION This section presents the results of the thesis’ research objectives with its corresponding discussion. First, results are discussed individually in relation to each research question and then, findings are connected through a general discussion. 3.1 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS RELATED TO EACH RESEARCH OBJECTIVE This section discusses the results corresponding to the three research objectives of this thesis, which are unpacked through the seven research questions that guide this study. 3.1.1 Food safety through classroom activities. An approach based on scientific practices The first research objective, “Designing classroom activities aimed at developing scientific practices in the context of food safety”, is specified in the following research question: RQ1. Which features should meet classroom activities for promoting secondary students’ engagement in scientific practices in the context of food safety? This particular question is addressed mainly in publication 1, which presents the activities of the first pilot study, and indirectly in publications 2, 3 and 4, presenting and examining the activities in the final study. By analysing the classroom activities designed during this thesis project we are able to explore if they are implemented adequately in terms of: a) the student's participation and motivation; b) whether there are any difficulties in the students’ understanding of the topic (food safety); c) appreciations and considerations on the teaching support that needs to be provided; d) the time devoted to an specific task; and e) the opportunities these activities offer to engage in scientific practices, in this case, argumentation. The examination of RQ1 led to the identification of a set of the activities’ features that are required for the students’ adequate engagement in the scientific practice of argumentation, namely in the area of food safety. As mentioned before, publication 1 of this thesis addresses the four activities that are part of the first pilot study. This study contributed to identify a number of difficulties in the sequence of activities implemented that were fixed for the final study. Notable changes were made to address the problems encountered, which are summarised hereafter. In the first two activities, difficulties were observed when students attempted to incorporate data to draw a conclusion through a press report on a food safety incident taking place in a high school. Moreover, the press report was examined individually, so the first two activities did not promote the co-construction of knowledge, as recommended by Driver et al. Section 3. Discussion 133 (1994), which is amended in the final study. In contrast, activities 3 and 4 were carried out in small groups but a lack of understanding of the steps of the WHO protocol for public health emergencies and their interaction to achieve a result was observed, although definitions of the steps were provided to the students. Additionally, substantial differences in the students’ performance in argumentation were observed among the groups that had a greater background in science and those who did not. Oliveras Prat and Marquez Bargalló (2013) also reported significant differences depending on the background in students’ use of data. This situation prompted to select students that had a significant background in science for the following studies, given their unfamiliarity with the topic of food safety, as well as with tasks that promote their engagement in scientific practices. The second pilot study was not discussed in any of the publications of this thesis, but it acted as a bridge between the first pilot study and the final study, allowing to apply and reassess the corrections derived from the analysis of the first pilot study. It was also useful to further explore the appropriate strategies to promote the use of epistemic knowledge during the participation in the activities, especially in the case of the role-play game, which was performed for the first time in the second pilot study. Considering the complexity of this activity, in terms of the time management and the handling of different sources of information, it was essential to have this reference for the final study. In this way, it was possible to better allocate time for small group discussions and general debates, as well as to correct some deficiencies in the data provided during the activity, in order to improve the interpretation of the data. The materials provided in the activity were also corrected to facilitate the students' immersion in the fictional world of the role-play game as well as the rules that guided the decision-making processes in each round. This course of action aligns with Malmqvist et al.’ (2019) statement that pilot studies contribute to identify the modifications that need to be made to elicit appropriate responses and obtain rich data. The difficulties that were observed during the implementation of the sequence of activities in the final study are presented as it follows. It should be mentioned that the focus of these publications was not to explore these difficulties in depth, but to answer the research questions related to research objectives 2 and 3 of this thesis. Publications 2 and 3 correspond to the second research objective, while publication 4 relates to the third research objective. However, we took into consideration the limitations of the study in these publications, even after the corrections, so it is indeed relevant to discuss the most relevant obstacles in the implementation of the final study. For the purpose of clarification, in this particular case, publications are grouped according to the activity they examine. Publications 2 and 4 both examine activity 3, the last activity of the final study, the roleplay, which promotes students’ engagement in the practice of argumentation. A key component of this activity is the timing, as the time for the small group discussions and general debates is allocated for the purpose of portraying a growing sense of emergency and promoting agreements between small groups to bring a proposal to the debate. However, it is important to be careful, as students also need time and opportunities to cooperate, reflect and even modify their ideas (Barron et al., 1998), something that already poses a challenge when considering the content and norms of high school science (Alozie et al., 2010). One of the difficulties that were observed during the participation of the students in the role-play was their interpretation of a graph that shows the food consumption by those affected by the outbreak in the previous days to the display of their symptoms. This aligns with studies that state that the misinterpretation of LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 134 evidence is one of the main difficulties that students face when constructing arguments (Acar et al., 2010). Scientists communicate through representations such as graphs and diagrams and students’ interpretations are problematic as they do not have an equal level of understanding (Glazer, 2011). Taking into account that difficulties in data interpretation in a role-play can be dealt with by incorporating more scaffolding for that particular matter, this approach would be adequate to encourage collaborative argumentation and to promote students’ involvement in the decision-making process that entails dealing with SSIs. Publication 3 examines the second activity of the final study, which combined a collaborative experimental design between small groups to determine the origin of an outbreak and the evaluation of the real outcome of the outbreak. This activity promotes students’ engagement in the practices of inquiry and argumentation. This publication was helpful to confirm the appropriateness of addressing food safety from upper secondary levels, given the complexity of this topic and also to justify the need of including it in compulsory education given that food safety issues affect the whole population and is considered as everyone’s responsibility (Norton & Braden, 2007). In relation to the implementation of the activity, it was clarified that students were not asked to conduct the experiment themselves, and focused instead on the experimental design, allocating their time to selecting the appropriate samples and making predictions, while incorporating scientific data, adapted press reports and medical records. González Rodríguez and Crujeiras Pérez (2016) reported that students had the most difficulties when planning the investigation and the first part of the activity addresses precisely the above-mentioned aspects of the planning process. However, the shortcomings during the implementation, both when designing the experiment and analysing the outcome, highlighted two important considerations. On the one hand, the necessity of address inquiry and argumentation, in an explicit way in order for students to be able to successfully complete the tasks. On the other hand, the need to reduce the scope of certain tasks in order to adapt to the time available and to be able to delve into certain aspects, such as the examination of evidence, which are essential for students’ adequate participation in inquiry and argumentation practices. Moreover, previous instruction in the topic of food safety (addressed in the final study through the first activity) and in scientific practices (addressed partially in the final study through the first activity) is required in order to successfully implement the sequence. 3.1.2 Epistemic knowledge involved in the development of students’ inquiry and argumentation practices The second research objective, “Analysing the epistemic knowledge involved in the adequate development of students’ inquiry and argumentation practices”, is unpacked in RQ2a and RQ2b, which are examined in publication 2 and RQ2c and RQ2d, examined in publication 3. RQ2a. Which epistemic operations are performed by small groups of students during their conversations about solving an alimentary emergence during a role-play game? RQ2b. Which epistemic operations prevail in students’ decisions for solving an alimentary emergence during a role-play game? Section 3. Discussion 135 RQ2c. Which epistemic disciplinary knowledge do secondary students use for designing an experiment to identify the cause of an alimentary emergency? RQ2d. Which epistemic disciplinary knowledge do secondary students consider for evaluating the measures taken during the alimentary emergency? This research objective addresses the examination of the epistemic knowledge involved in inquiry and argumentation practices through two of the three perspectives that relate science learning and epistemology (Kelly et al., 2012). The social perspective is the frame for RQ2a and RQ2b, which aim to examine the epistemic practices performed by students, and more specifically the epistemic operations that characterize students’ discourse during the small group discussions (RQ2a) and general debates (RQ2b) that take place in their conversations during the role-play, which promotes students’ engagement in argumentation. On the other hand, the disciplinary perspective is addressed in RQ2c and RQ2d, which aim to examine the epistemic disciplinary knowledge that students take into consideration while designing the experiment (RQ2c) and evaluating the real outcome of the outbreak (RQ2d). The analysis of RQ2a and RQ2b focused on identifying the epistemic operations that were performed by students during two different sets of interactions in the role-play: the small group discussion, where students had to make a proposal for addressing a food emergency, and the general debate, where small groups came together to partake in a decision-making process in order to deal with the emergency. Each epistemic operation, understood as a targeted discursive action, was classified into the broader construct of epistemic practice, which, as a reminder, are the socially organised and interactionally accomplished ways that members of a group propose, communicate, evaluate, and legitimise knowledge claims (Kelly, 2008b). In relation to small group discussions, the results clearly show a predominance of the epistemic practice of proposing knowledge, which will be explored in detail in the section “Conclusions and educational implications”. As stated above, the majority of the epistemic operations performed by all the groups corresponded to the practice of proposing knowledge, specifically 153 out of 182 operations in total. Whereas Christodoulou (2012) also described a predominance of proposing knowledge in students’ discourse, Crujeiras-Pérez (2014) identified evaluating knowledge as the most common practice. Given than the former occurs in an argumentation setting (coincidental with our role-play) and the latter in an inquiry setting, the context of the tasks is different. According to Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. (2014) epistemic operations depend on the context in which they are performed. In contrast, 25 epistemic operations corresponded to evaluating knowledge whereas the practices of communicating and legitimising knowledge were merely anecdotal, with 2 epistemic operations each. A possible explanation for the lack of operations of communicating and legitimising knowledge is that they are not prompted by the activity at this stage, as students need to focus on constructing a proposal to present later in the general debate. This is coincidental with the assertion that the epistemic operations that appear depend on the demands of a particular task (Crujeiras-Pérez, 2014). LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 136 Considering the specific operations, “Inferring a plausible cause” and “Proposing explanations” were the most frequent in relation to the practice of proposing knowledge, in comparison to “Inferring the scope of a decision” and “Making sense of data”. This suggests that students considered more important to find the cause of the emergency rather than addressing its consequences. This finding is in line with those reported by other studies, such as Crujeiras-Pérez and Jiménez-Aleixandre's (2015) who also found that students allocated more time to identify the cause of browning in apples rather than making a proposal for prevent it. In relation to evaluating knowledge “Appealing to consistency with previous knowledge” and “Contrasting claims with available evidence” were more frequent than “Acknowledging the absence of data”. The epistemic operation “Persuading other members” was found and included in communicating knowledge whereas “Building consensus” corresponded to legitimising knowledge. The distinction between groups according to the different epistemic operations identified in their discussion was also explored. In relation to the general debates, the analysis differs to the previous one in the sense that it focused in determining how the epistemic operations contributed to a specific decision. In order to accurately display that, a series of graphs were constructed. These graphs showed the different epistemic operations identified in the debate during the joint decision-making process. For each operation, its alignment with the activation or deactivation of a given resource (or its rebuttal) was presented. It should also be added that the graph includes a temporal dimension, as the operations are shown in the order in which they occur. For general debates, the epistemic operations related to the practice of evaluating knowledge, namely “Appealing to consistency with previous knowledge” and “Contrasting claims with available evidence” were more frequent when different positions collide, whereas the epistemic operations of proposing knowledge still dominate when there was not a clear disagreement between the groups. If we consider that more operations related to the practice of evaluating knowledge demonstrates a better performance in argumentation this finding is coincidental with Iordanou and Kuhn’s (2019). According to these authors, students who were confronted with positions that were contrary to their own performed better in argumentation. Moreover, the epistemic operation “Recognising value of other positions”, included in the practice of legitimising knowledge, appeared in several instances, in contrast with small group discussions. The results show ambivalence between the predominancy of proposing and evaluating knowledge in relation to the absence or presence of opposing positions in relation to the management of resources, which will be further explored in the section “Conclusions and educational implications”. In summary, the results corresponding to the two research questions addressed in publication 2 (RQ2a and RQ2b) show a very detailed characterization of the epistemic operations identified through discourse analysis. This implies an accomplishment in detecting the epistemic operations that are more relevant for argumentation in a role-play game and also the ones that need to be prompted through additional intervention. As stated before, these issues will be explored in the section “Conclusions and educational implications”. The analysis of RQ2c and RQ2d focused on identifying the epistemic disciplinary knowledge that students took into consideration when addressing a real food emergency. The activity in publication 3 has two phases: a) the design of an experiment which promotes students’ engagement in the scientific practice of inquiry; and b) the evaluation of the real outcome of the outbreak, which promotes their engagement in inquiry and argumentation. As a reminder, epistemic disciplinary knowledge relates to the knowledge between practising Section 3. Discussion 137 scientific communities (Kelly, et al., 2012) and more specifically to how this knowledge is used in the scientific community and its main characteristics (Kelly, 2008a). Before the analysis, a literature review was carried out to identify the epistemic disciplinary aspects associated with scientific practices (Crujeiras-Pérez et al., 2021), in this case inquiry and argumentation. Some specific examples of the epistemic disciplinary knowledge that would provide meaningful engagement in inquiry for this particular activity are "considering systematicity as a feature of the scientific methodology that leads to valued forms of knowledge" (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004), "acknowledging that the outcome of a single experiment is rarely sufficient to establish a knowledge claim" (Osborne et al. 2003) or that "it is important to conduct a clear, honest and accurate data collection" (Georgia Department of Education, 2016). Regarding the argumentation practice, students should consider that "a claim must answer the question and be supported by evidence" (Chen et al. 2016), that "the quality of claim and evidence is important for establishing a convincing argument" (McNeill et al., 2006; Sampson et al., 2011) or that "authority is less persuasive than evidence" (Kittleson, 2011; Sandoval & Çam, 2011). The rubrics for the analysis of these research questions were developed after several interactions between data and literature. The approach for introducing epistemic knowledge was mainly implicit, meaning that the students were unaware of the role of epistemic knowledge, as it was allegedly prompted by the activity. Nevertheless, a couple of questions relating to the selection of the samples and the role of the design of the experiment were asked more explicitly. In relation to the design phase, there was not a clear pattern between the use of epistemic disciplinary knowledge among small groups. In terms of frequency, the epistemic knowledge “Considering the need of ensuring representativity of the samples selected in an investigation” appeared in 10 out of 36 instances followed by “Identifying the need of conducting an experiment to answer the question being investigated” and “Referring to the relevance of the evidence in drawing conclusions”, with 7 instances each. “Recognising the need of conducting a reliable investigation” and “Acknowledging the role that evidence plays in an investigation” appeared in 6 instances each whereas the epistemic knowledge “Considering the need of conducting a reproducible investigation” did not appear in the students’ conversations. This contrast could be explained by the type of questions that students were asked during the activity, as those were related to the sampling and the relevance of the experimental design, rather that explicitly asking if an experiment has to be conducted more than once in order to be considered valid. All six groups identified at least three different epistemic disciplinary aspects, demonstrating that they took into consideration several features of the experimental design, which is a good indicator in their use of disciplinary knowledge that is deemed relevant for an adequate engagement in inquiry. Further consideration of this matter is addressed in the section “Conclusions and educational implications” of this thesis project. In relation to the evaluation phase, the disciplinary epistemic knowledge relevant for each epistemic practice was analysed jointly, and it needs to be noted that this knowledge can overlap between scientific practices (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Crujeiras-Pérez, 2017), as it happened with “Referring to the relevance of the evidence in drawing conclusions”, which is highly relevant for an adequate engagement in both inquiry and argumentation. Again, there was not a clear pattern among small groups and in terms of frequency, the epistemic knowledge “Recognising LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 138 the role of investigation in decision-making to solve a scientific or socio-scientific issue” appeared in 6 out of 11 instances, followed by “Considering the role of authority in justifying conclusions”, with 3 instances, the aforementioned “Referring to the relevance of the evidence in drawing conclusions”, with 2 instances and “Alluding to the feasibility of the design for solving a scientific or socio-scientific issue”, which was not identified in any of the students’ conversations. The interpretation of this findings is provided in “Conclusions and Educational Implications”. In summary, the results corresponding to the two research questions collected in publication 3 (RQ2c and RQ2d) show again that discourse analysis allows to accurately depict how students use disciplinary epistemic knowledge in order to delve into the necessary features for conducting an experimental design such as representativity, reliability…, as well as to detect the ones that are not present and therefore need to be prompted by further intervention, which is extremely relevant for an adequate engagement in inquiry. Discourse analysis also allows to establish a relation between disciplinary epistemic knowledge and argumentation, given that students need to consider the role of evidence in generating an argument and to understand that evidence must outweigh authority (Kittleson, 2011), something that the scientific community agrees on. Similarly, we can also detect the epistemic aspects relevant for argumentation that are not present in the discourse, and therefore need to be tackled by prompting them with additional strategies, such as asking targeted questions in order for students to reflect on a particular matter. If we take into consideration our previous scenario where “Considering the need of conducting a reproducible investigation” did not appear, we could introduce questions such as: a) Is it important to repeat the experiment? or b) Is it important that more than one person conducts the experiment? In this sense we agree with Puntambekar y Kolodner (2005) in recognising as essential the scaffolding from the teaching practice. To summarise the results achieved through the second research objective, it is appropriate to highlight that epistemic knowledge can be examined through the lens of different perspectives that consequently convey different information. In this case, the choice of the social perspective provides some insight on how knowledge is established through interaction in a role-play that represents a fictional alimentary emergency. Moreover, the disciplinary perspective offers an understanding on how students use the knowledge about scientific practices that is relevant for an effective engagement in inquiry and argumentation. Although both perspectives are related to the processes of knowledge construction and validation, it is interesting to note the contrast between the interaction with the members of the group in a science classroom and the alignment with the contributions of the scientific community related to the nature of scientific practices on how to appropriately establish and refine knowledge. 3.1.3 Use of data in the scientific practice of argumentation The third research objective “Examining students’ use of data in the scientific practice of argumentation” is specified in these two research questions, addressed in publication 4. RQ3a) Which sources of information do students use for making a decision during a roleplay game to solve an alimentary emergence? RQ3b) Which criteria do students consider more important for making a decision during a role-play game to solve an alimentary emergence? Section 3. Discussion 139 The examination of RQ3a and RQ3b, which aim to analyse the role-play game, allowed to assess students’ performances in the scientific practice of argumentation, through the examination of the sources of information and the criteria that the students used while trying to solve the alimentary emergency. Both, sources of information and criteria are representative of the negotiation processes that take place during socio-scientific decision-making. They can also be linked to the three goals that Berland and Reiser (2009) propose for argumentation, which are: a) using evidence and science concepts to make sense of the specific phenomena being studied; b) articulating these understandings (generating arguments); and c) persuading others of these explanations. Sources of information represent the need to consider different contributions in order to make an informed decision, whereas criteria represent the main focus for a person or a group when considering how to make a particular choice. As stated earlier, the role-play game is divided in small group discussions and general debates. Sources of information and criteria are examined for both the small group discussions and the general debates. The categories for the rubrics for the analysis of both sources and criteria are selected following the design of the role-play. The coding is developed inductively following grounded theory (Yin, 2011). In relation to the sources of information, the most frequently used by students was “Speculation” with 108 mentions out of the 266 total, followed by “Information about the resources” with 69, “Information about the disease”, with 48, “Rules of the game”, with 25 and “Personal experiences”, with 16. All three groups used “Speculation” as their primary source among other similarities, but differences can also be observed, for example, in the variation of the use of the source “Information about the disease”, which is notoriously less prevalent in one of the groups in comparison to the other two. The abundance of “Speculation” can be linked to the nature of the role-play, which occurs through recreations (Rao & Stupans, 2012) and has a lot of potential for triggering students’ imagination (Eilks et al., 2013). For the analysis of small group discussions, these were divided in episodes that represent a significant shift in the topic of conversation (for example, episode 4, interpretation of the survey to patients is followed by episode 5, activation and deactivation of resources). The division in episodes allowed to account for the sources of information that appeared throughout the small group discussions and those who did not. It also allowed to compare the groups in a more specific manner, for example, paying attention to one specific episode. In general, “Speculation” was the source more widely distributed throughout episodes in all groups, followed by “Information about the disease”. The examination of the sources of information in the three general debates showed that speculation did translate to general debates, although its utilization decreased, with only one instance codified as speculative in the third and last debate. In contrast, the rules of the game were not mentioned in any general debate. Some insights as to these results are provided in the following section. In relation to the criteria, the most frequently used by students were “Prevention of contagion” and “Severity of disease” with 18 instances each, out of 65. These criteria were followed by “Informing the population”, with 12 instances, “Economic cost”, with 11, and “Usefulness”, with 6 instances. It is important to highlight that none of the groups had the same primary criterion and two of the groups did not mention one of the criteria, which is different for both. This indicates that students develop different perspectives, which is one of the benefits of the role-play mentioned by Metz (2005). In small group discussions, several episodes did not include any criteria and each group had a different criterion that is not mentioned in any episode. The examination of the criteria in the three general debates showed that criteria that were LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 146 Conclusion 6: Evaluating knowledge being more common in the general debates of the role-play than in the small groups discussions has a link with the disagreements between the proposals of the different small groups Although the epistemic operations related to the practice of evaluating knowledge did appear in the small groups’ conversations, they were more prevalent in the general debates, but only when the groups experienced disagreements between their proposals. This suggests that students are more likely to engage in argumentation when facing a confrontation of different ideas. This is coincidental with Kuhn’s (2019) insights on what generates a good argument: evidence that supports a certain position or comparisons between different positions from a critical stance. Additionally, Iordanou and Kuhn (2019) reported better performances in argumentation when students dealt with contrasting ideas rather than similar ones. It also needs to be noted that the epistemic operations of evaluating knowledge are essential for a proper engagement in argumentation. More specifically, these operations refer to contrasting claims with evidence, demanding consistent explanations or acknowledging that there is not enough data to reach a proper conclusion. All these three operations have a common denominator: the evidence or lack of thereof. Conclusion 7: Epistemic disciplinary knowledge related to inquiry identified in the students’ conversations during the design and the evaluation phase of a real food emergency addressed many aspects of the experimental design, but missed some others In general, all of the groups whose conversations were examined, made use of disciplinary epistemic knowledge in order to express the different ways in which an experiment can be trusted (experiment is carried out a certain way, samples are representative…) or appropriate to answer a certain question (evidence plays a role in the investigation, the experiment has to provide a particular answer…). However, all the groups were unsuccessful in acknowledging the need for the experiment to be reproductible and in addressing the appropriateness of the design for solving a SSI, which is interpreted as the result of the activity tackling mostly sample selection and no other aspects of experimental design (control of variables, instrumental error…) and also not providing more appropriate questions that promote further reflection on these aspects. As Van de Pol et al. (2010) point out, scaffolding is not a technique that can be applied in every situation in the same way. It is a dynamic process of interaction between the teacher and the students, and the type of support students receive depends on the task and their response to it. Given that other studies reported that students faced challenges when planning an investigation (González Rodríguez & Crujeiras Pérez, 2016; Vílchez et al., 2015) we should have considered the implications of introducing a smaller part of the experimental design. It may be more difficult for students to integrate epistemic disciplinary knowledge into their discourse if they do not fully grasp the entire experimental design process. Conclusion 8: Epistemic disciplinary knowledge related to argumentation identified in the students’ conversations during the evaluation phase of a real food emergency addressed two important components of socio-scientific argumentation In this case, the epistemic knowledge that students used in their conversations addressed the consideration that the claim must be supported by the evidence to generate a good argument (Sampson et al., 2011) but also that evidence must always outweigh authority (Sandoval & Çam, 2011). This is particularly relevant when dealing with SSIs, especially when competing interests play a part. Moreover, it is precisely what occurs in the real case presented in this Section 4. Conclusions and educational implications 147 activity, when a very questionable decision was made by the German authorities regarding a food outbreak. Students must weigh the information available at that time, the emergency that occurred and the evidence collected after the outbreak. This is in line with Sadler’s (2009) affirmation that science is not confined in a professional environment, existing instead in the real world. Conclusion 9: An explicit-reflective approach is recommended after contrasting the outcome of explicit and implicit approaches in examining epistemic knowledge In the same way that occurs with the nature of science (Lederman et al., 2013), epistemic knowledge can be approached implicitly, through the completion of activities; explicitly, addressing it theoretically to improve the students' conceptions; or through an explicit-reflective approach, which implies that at the end of the activities in question, it is necessary to dedicate some time to analyse the epistemic aspects involved in the activity and the implications for these aspects in the construction of scientific knowledge. Considering that nature of science and epistemic knowledge draw from Epistemology of Science, it is reasonable that both require a similar approach to be adequately performed. It is important to clarify that epistemic practices (activity 3 of the sequence, publication 2) and epistemic disciplinary knowledge (activity 2 of the sequence, publication 3) were examined in a different way in terms on how epistemic knowledge was prompted in the students’ conversations. In publication 2, the approach is implicit, meaning that students were not specifically asked questions about epistemic knowledge, they only took part in a role-play with a set of rules that promote collaborative argumentation. In publication 3, the approach was fundamentally implicit, although there were some questions that promote the consideration of the importance of the experimental design or the correct sampling for an experiment, which are aspects of disciplinary epistemic knowledge related to inquiry and argumentation. This means that some tasks required from students in this activity were more explicit or targeted, and this had a direct relation with the sort of epistemic disciplinary knowledge more frequent in their conversations. In summary, the implicit approach is useful to identify the epistemic knowledge that is absent in the students’ conversations and therefore needs to be promoted with scaffolding, whereas the explicit approach already provides guidance for prompting epistemic knowledge in the discourse. However, the latter needs to be followed by a reflection on the implications that epistemic knowledge has in the construction of scientific knowledge or in addressing socioscientific issues in order to improve students' engagement in scientific practices. This is in line with some empirical studies that reported students' improvements in their performances following the explicit reflective approach (Crujeiras-Pérez & Díaz-Moreno, 2022; Leblebicioglu et al., 2017). 4.1.3 Use of data in the scientific practice of argumentation The examination of O3. To examine students’ use of data in the scientific practice of argumentation allowed us to establish two conclusions. Conclusion 10: Speculation was the primary source of information during the role-play, and although it reduced gradually and was not completely unexpected, it guided students’ conversations more than it was desirable LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 148 Students made use of several sources of information during the role-play, but most notably “Speculation” followed by “Information about the resources” and “Information about the disease”. This was not entirely unexpected as the role-pay develops through recreations (Rao & Stupans, 2012), which originate through narrations of the fictional events that are taking place. These thought processes have a very strong imaginative component, as Eilks et al. (2013) described. For this reason, students may choose to follow their own interpretations instead of focusing on other sources of information such as the data provided about the resources or the disease. Nevertheless, speculation decreases as the game progresses, more notably during the general debates, where the groups come together to make a joint decision. This finding indicates that students do not confront their proposals fundamentally through speculation, although it still occurs in several instances. In this sense, making the categories for the sources of information that students use available to them could be a way of preventing speculation from dominating the discourse and exploring how students confer value to the different sets of data they receive. Conclusion 11: There was not a prevalent criterion in students’ conversations during the role-play and they shifted between small group discussion and general debates, drawing a parallel with real-life situations that SSIs represent Students’ conversations did not reflect a clear preference for any criterion. Moreover, general debates showed how students incorporated new criteria that they had not use before, as well as disregarding other criteria they had mentioned. This finding indicates that students had a willingness to redefine their course of action (defined by the criteria) when listening to other interventions. This result is positive, given that students have a certain tendency to ignore data when it contradicts their beliefs (Kuhn, 1991). In this sense, the role-play can be a useful tool to promote students’ consideration of other perspectives. This finding is supported by Simmoneaux’s (2001) study that described a greater change in students’ opinion when participating in a role-play rather than in classical debate. Additionally, the fact that students based their arguments on different criteria, despite working with the same information, establishes a parallel with real events (especially when dealing with emergency situations) in which many perspectives must be considered in order to make a decision and thus prevent further consequences. This can be related to the different dimensions (scientific, technological and social) that converge in socio-scientific issues (Papadouris, 2012). 4.2 EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS The educational implications that arise from the conclusions are described as it follows. From conclusions 1, 2 & 3, which are related to the first research objective, the educational implications are the need for teachers to appropriately present data and evidence to students for the construction of arguments. In some cases, and taking into account the implementation of the sequence of activities in the final study, the information needs to be simplified (for example, establishing a timeline for the events before and after the outbreak in the activity 2), classified (for example, distinguishing between several sources of information for the design of the experiment in the activity 2) or administrated (for example, providing the information at different stages as it happens in the role-play). Some studies have already discussed the need for a proper scaffolding in order for students to meaningful engage in scientific practices (Berland et al., 2020) and we agree that further progress in this direction is needed. Section 4. Conclusions and educational implications 149 Another important educational implication is that topics that are less familiar to students can add another layer of difficulty, thus the scaffolding both from the design of the tasks and the teaching practice becomes even more important. From conclusions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, which are related to the second research objective, the educational implications are the need to consider epistemic knowledge as an essential component for a meaningful engagement in scientific practices. Stroupe (2014) expresses this idea by stating that students become epistemic agents when engaging in scientific practices, meaning by that agency that students shape the knowledge and practice of a science community. In this sense, we need to be able to discern between epistemic and non-epistemic discourse during the students’ conversations and also how to prompt epistemic instances during tasks that promote students’ participation in scientific practices. Therefore, there is a need for developing proper coding tools that inform teacher practice. Another interesting implication arises from the fact that epistemic knowledge can be analysed through the lens of several perspectives. In our case, the social perspective and the disciplinary perspective complimented each other, as the former focuses on the interactive actions between the members of a community and the latter focuses on the knowledge relevant for a discipline or practice. It is interesting to present coding tools that contribute to more than one perspective, as they inform teaching in different ways. Furthermore, a decision has to be made on how epistemic knowledge is presented to students in the classroom. Although there are different perspectives (implicit, explicit and explicit-reflective) that result in different outcomes, it needs to be a conscious decision, in the sense that teachers need to be aware of what they want to achieve with each approach. From conclusions 10 & 11, which are related to the third research objective, the educational implications are the need to establish a clear differentiation between evidence and speculation and the value they both have in drawing a conclusion. This can be attained by asking students to categorise the data they have and to identify which kind of information they use and value when elaborating proposals to engage in decision-making processes. In addition, when participating in a decision that entails different opposing criteria, the connection to real-life events needs to be clear order for students to successfully participate in SSIs. This entails working towards an awareness of the consequences than opting for a particular criterion (or criteria) can bring to society when dealing with real-life events. In this case, a connection can be established with Sadler’s (2009) assertion that science is not reduced to professional activity but exists instead in the real world. 4.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE LINES OF RESEARCH The limitations of this study correspond predominantly to its methodological design. Case studies are designed in order to allow a deep and detailed analysis of the object of study (Cohen et al., 2007), and for that they are considered suitable for exploring complex phenomena (Yin, 2003), such as the educational processes that take place during this thesis project. However, the strengths of the case study also generate a series of drawbacks, the main one being the impossibility of generalize the findings of the study (Cohen et al., 2007), since the results are constrained to a particular context. LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 150 Furthermore, the final study (as well as the previous pilot studies) was carried out in a real classroom, meaning that certain elements cannot be fully controlled. There was an initial contact with all the teachers that participated in the study in order to explore the possibility for them to conduct the activity, but it was deemed very difficult due to the nature of the sequence of activities and the topic, which was not explicitly addressed in the curriculum of secondary education (CCEOU, 2015). This means that we were not able to control the fact that an external person unfamiliar to students conducted the sequence of activities. Teachers were the ones that divided the students into small groups taking into consideration previous dynamics in the classroom, as well as the knowledge and motivation of the students in the subject. It needs to be mentioned that there were small changes between the small groups between the sessions. Students did no change groups, but some of them missed one or two of the sessions. In relation to timing, four sessions were destined for the final study, including the time for setting the cameras and audio recorders in each session. Although more time could have been allocated to further instruct the students in inquiry and argumentation, it was not possible and the lack of experience of the students with tasks involving scientific practices was taken into account during the design of the sequence. However, a better performance could have been attained with more time to engage in the tasks and in this particular learning approach. Taking into consideration the limitations and the findings of the study, we propose two future lines of research. The first line of research relates to the scaffolding that is necessary to prompt students to effectively use epistemic knowledge in order to engage in scientific practices. We have discussed previously the explicit-reflective approach as the most useful one for students to understand the role that epistemic knowledge plays in science learning. Although some efforts have been made in this direction, it is necessary to further explore the most appropriate strategies and the type of questions that need to be asked to students. Our analysis has shown that epistemic knowledge needs to be promoted from the teaching practice, as there are limitations for students to perform well if they do not have the proper guidance to do so. The second line of research relates to the coding of the students’ conversations that took place during the sequence of activities. In the case of the role-play, the coding for the epistemic operations in relation with the alignment of a particular decision allowed to see very easily how viewpoints can change when students engage in argumentation and what type of epistemic operations contribute to that. In addition, those findings indicated that opposing stances were playing a role in the type of epistemic operations that appeared. In this case, we propose that multidimensional coding, particularly during the analysis of discourse in a powerful tool to explore decision-making processes. We humbly hope that the results of this thesis contribute to clarify how epistemic knowledge is essential for an adequate engagement in scientific practices and also to understand why students experience difficulties in incorporating this type of knowledge in their conversations in a learning setting. We aspire to broaden the current understanding of inquiry and argumentation practices and how to properly design learning environments that promote collaborative learning. We also expect to contribute with some useful approaches on how the Section 4. Conclusions and educational implications 151 analysis of discourse can effectively serve to examine epistemic knowledge through different the lens of different perspectives. Finally, we sincerely hope that this project can help teachers that are interested in introducing inquiry and argumentation in the classroom when teaching science. 5. REFERENCES Acar, O., Turkmen, L. & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio‐scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206. Achieve (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94, 395–427. Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative sociology, 42(2), 139–160. Amos, R., Knippels, M.-C., & Levinson, R. (2020). Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning: Possibilities, and challenges for teacher education. In M. Evagorou, J.A. Nielsen & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science teacher education for responsible citizenship (pp. 41–61). Springer. Barrett, T. E., Feng, Y. & Wang, H-H. (2020). Food safety in the classroom: Using the delphi technique to evaluate researcher-developed food safety curriculum aligned to state academic standards. Journal of Food Science Education, 19, 152–172. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, D. J. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and projectbased learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311. Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education: The role of peer discussion. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral Reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Springer. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2010). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. Berland, L. K., Russ, R.S., & West, C.P. (2020). Supporting the scientific practices through epistemologically responsive science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31, 264–290. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112. Blanco Anaya, P. & Díaz de Bustamante, J. (2014). Argumentación y uso de pruebas: realización de inferencias sobre una secuencia de icnitas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(2), 35–52. Section 5. References 153 Booth, R., Hernandez, M., Baker, E. L., Grajales, T., & Pribis, P. (2013). Food safety attitudes in college students: a structural equation modeling analysis of a conceptual model. Nutrients, 5(2), 328–339. Brocos, P., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2020). El impacto ambiental de la alimentación: argumentos de alumnado de Magisterio y Secundaria. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, 38(1), 127–145. Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell, & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science, (pp. 20–46). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Chen, Y., Hand, B. & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science and Education, 25, 277–320. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments from Philosophy and Psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. Chinn, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 883–908. Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 425–453). MIT Press. Christodoulou, A. (2012). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: Two case studies of teachers and their students [Doctoral dissertation, King’s College London]. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/368139/ Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. Chowdhury, T. B. M., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2020). Socioscientific issues within science education and their role in promoting the desired citizenry. Science Education International, 31(2), 203–208. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge. Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria (CCEOU) (2015). Decreto 86/2015 do 25 de xuño polo que se establece o currículo da educación secundaria obrigatoria e do bacharelato na Comunidade Autónoma de Galicia. Courtney, S. M., Majowicz, S. E. & Dubin, J. A. (2016). Food safety knowledge of undergraduate students at a Canadian university: results of an online survey. BMC Public Health, 16(1). Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Sage Publications. Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2014). Competencias e prácticas científicas no laboratorio de química: participación do alumnado de secundaria na indagación [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela]. http://hdl.handle.net/10347/12072 Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2020). Epistemic criteria considered by pre-service teachers for assessing the quality of a scientific investigation about friction force. Research in Science Education, 52(2), 459–472. LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 154 Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Díaz-Moreno, N. (2022). Promoting Pre-Service Primary Teachers’ Development of NOSI Through Specific Immersion and Reflection. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), em2089. Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Brocos, P. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ use of epistemic criteria in the assessment of scientific procedures for identifying microplastics in beach sand. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 237–246. Crujeiras-Pérez, B., Brocos Mosquera, P., Casas-Quiroga, L., & Cambeiro Cambeiro, F. (2021). Actividades para desarrollar el conocimiento epistémico implicado en las prácticas científicas en la educación secundaria. Servicio de Publicaciones e intercambio científico, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2015). Desafíos planteados por las actividades abiertas de indagación en el laboratorio: articulación de conocimientos teóricos y prácticos en las prácticas científicas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 33(1), 63– 84. Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2017). High school students’ engagement in planning investigations: Findings from a longitudinal study in Spain. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 99–112. Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2019). Students’ progression in monitoring anomalous results obtained in inquiry-based laboratory tasks. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 243–264. Cuevas, P., Oklee, L., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving Science Inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357. Cunningham. C., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101, 486–505. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High‐school Students’ Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1– 28). Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 29–71). Sage Publications. Domènech Casal, J., (2014). ¿Cómo lo medimos? Siete contextos de indagación para detectar y corregir concepciones erróneas sobre magnitudes y unidades. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 11(3), 398–409. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Open University Press. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291. Duschl, R. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Planning and carrying out investigations: An entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 1–12. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109–2139. Section 5. References 155 Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. Duschl, R. A., Scweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology. Sage. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). (2021). The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA Journal, 19 (2), 6406, 286pp. Eilks, I., Prins, G. T., & Lazarowitz, R. (2013). How to organize the chemistry classroom in a student-active mode. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry – a studybook (pp. 183–212). Sense Publishers. Ellis, J. D., Sebranek, J. G., & Sneed, J. (2004). Iowa high school students' perceptions of food safety. Food Protection Trends, 24(4), 239–245. Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse, Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. Eriksson, I. & Lindberg, V. (2016). Enriching ‘learning activity’ with ‘epistemic practices’ – enhancing students’ epistemic agency and authority. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1. European Commission (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European Union, L31, 1– 24. Evagorou, M. & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization). (2003). Assuring food safety and quality. Guidelines for strengthening national food control systems. Food and Nutrition Paper No. 76. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y8705E/Y8705E00.HTM). FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization). (2011). FAO/WHO Guide for Application of Risk Analysis During Food Safety Emergencies. FAO/WHO. Fung, F., Wang, H-S. Menon, S. (2018). Food safety in the 21st century. Biomedical Journal, 41(2), 88–95. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 207–245. García-Carmona, A. (2020). From Inquiry-Based Science Education to the Approach Based on Scientific Practices. Science & Education, 29(2), 443–463. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. Routledge Gee, J. P. & Handford, M. (2012). The Routledge Handbook of discourse analysis. Routledge. Georgia Department of Education (2016). K-12 Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) for Science. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge University Press. APPENDIX A. Handouts of activities 1 and 2 of the final study. Activity 1. Introducing food safety Activity 2. Analysing a real case of a food-borne outbreak B. Publications. Journal quality indicators and authorisation. Appendix 163 A. HANDOUTS OF ACTIVITIES 1 AND 2 OF THE FINAL STUDY. ACTIVITY 1. Introducing food safety 1) What do the words “food safety” mean? Could they be associated with any familiar concept? 2) Are these people in a “food security” situation or not? Why? If the answer is no, what could be the missing cornerstone? 3) What can be the scientific advances that influence the improvement of food safety? Why do you think they might be necesary? LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 164 ACTIVITY 2. Analysing a real case of a food-borne outbreak CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS (FIRST PART) ✓ On May 22, the German government notifies the European Commission of an increase in the number of cases of hemorrhagic diarrhea in the country, related to the E. coli bacterium. ✓ On May 26 the senator from Hamburg appears in the media indicating that the infectious outbreak was caused by a batch of cucumbers from Almeria (Spain). ✓ That same afternoon the European Commission issues a notification that puts fruits and vegetables from Spain in the spotlight. The Hamburg Hygiene Institute indicates that the E. coli bacterium was found in two cucumbers of Spanish origin, and in another of Dutch origin. ✓ The German authorities advise the population not to eat these fruits and vegetables. Supermarkets and grocery stores withdraw the products. ✓ The companies pointed out as guilty assure that they have done all the necessary tests before exporting the products and all were negative. ✓ The infection spreads simultaneously in different parts of Germany, so the authorities and scientists assume that the cause of the outbreak is due to products of national distribution (German origin) Some of those affected state that they consumed soy in a restaurant. 1) If you were the scientists in charge of establishing the cause of the outbreak, how would you design the experiment? a) Chosen samples EXPERIMENT’S SAMPLES Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 JUSTIFICATION: Appendix 165 b) Chosen sample from the human body (choose the most suitable one) HUMAN BODY’S SAMPLE Blood Sweat Stool Urine Saliva Another JUSTIFICATION: c) What strain of bacteria could be causing the outbreak? Why? How can we be sure which food the outbreak comes from? 2) Why do you think it is necessary to design an experiment before carrying it out? CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS (SECOND PART) ✓ Posterior analysis show that the strain of bacteria found in the cucumbers is different from the strain found in the stool of those affected. ✓ Studies focus in analyzing the soy, when finding that many clients of a restaurant became ill after consuming it. ✓ The first tests were negative, but the aggressive variety was found on an organic farm in Lower Saxony. ✓ German authorities rectify and admit that the E. coli bacterium found in cucumbers is not the same strain of bacterium that is causing the deaths, and that the origin of the outbreak is in sprouted soybean crops in Lower Saxony. ✓ The final count indicates that 23 people died and more than 1000 were affected. 3) Do you think that the German government acted appropriately from a scientific point of view? Why? Is there any difference with the WHO protocol that we saw earlier? LUCIA CASAS QUIROGA 166 B. PUBLICATIONS. JOURNAL QUALITY INDICATORS AND AUTHORISATION. Casas-Quiroga, L., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2019). Una experiencia sobre seguridad alimentaria para trabajar la argumentación en el aula de educación secundaria. Revista Eureka Sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 16(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2019.v16.i2.2201 Name and Affiliation: Lucía Casas Quiroga. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Beatriz Crujeiras Pérez. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Quality indicators: SJR (2019): 0,381 (Q2) Authorisation: We have obtained written consent from Revista Eureka Sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias to reproduce the article referenced above in this thesis. In addition, the reproduction of this article in the doctoral dissertation is permitted under the journal's license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Specific contribution: The doctoral candidate contributed with a revision of the literature, an active role on the design of the sequence and data analysis. The full paper was written collaboratively between the two authors. Casas-Quiroga, L., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2020). Epistemic operations performed by high school students in an argumentation and decision-making context: Setrocia’s alimentary emergency. International Journal of Science Education, 42(16), 2653–2673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1824300 Name and Affiliation: Lucía Casas Quiroga. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Beatriz Crujeiras Pérez. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Quality indicators: JCR (2021): 2,518 (Q2); SJR (2021): 1,151 (Q1) Authorisation: We have obtained consent via email from International Journal of Science Education to reproduce the article referenced above in this thesis. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Science Education on 19 Oct 2020, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09500693.2020.1824300 Specific contribution: The doctoral candidate contributed with a revision of the literature, an active role on the design of the role-play and conducted the data collection. The data analysis and the writing of the full paper was carried out between the two authors. Casas-Quiroga, L., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2021). Epistemic knowledge considered by secondary school students involved in the examination of a real alimentary emergency. Journal of Biological Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.2012230 Appendix 167 Name and Affiliation: Lucía Casas Quiroga. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Beatriz Crujeiras Pérez. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Quality indicators: JCR (2021): 1,343 (Q4); SJR (2021): 0,427 (Q2) Authorisation: We have obtained consent via email from Journal of Biological Education to reproduce the article referenced above in this thesis. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Biological Education on 30 Dec 2021, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00219266.2021.2012230 Specific contribution: The doctoral candidate contributed with a revision of the literature, an active role on the design of the inquiry and argumentation activity and conducted the data collection. The data analysis and the writing of the full paper was carried out between the two authors. Casas-Quiroga, L., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2022). Trabajando la respuesta ante enfermedades de origen alimentario a través del juego de rol. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, 40(1), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3327 Name and Affiliation: Lucía Casas Quiroga. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Beatriz Crujeiras Pérez. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Quality indicators: JCR (2021): 1,217 (Q4). SJR (2021): 0,59 (Q2) Authorisation: We have obtained written consent from Enseñanza de Las Ciencias to reproduce the article referenced above in this thesis. In addition, the reproduction of this article in the doctoral dissertation is permitted under the journal's license (CC BY 4.0). Specific contribution: The doctoral candidate contributed with a revision of the literature, an active role on the design of the role-play and conducted the data collection. The data analysis and the writing of the full paper was carried out between the two authors. O obxectivo principal desta tese é analizar os desempeños do alumnado nas prácticas científicas de indagación (análise de investigacións científicas) e argumentación (avaliación do coñecemento en base a probas) durante a súa participación nunha secuencia de actividades baseada en seguridade alimentaria e emerxencias sanitarias de orixe alimentario. Tamén se analiza o coñecemento epistémico necesario para unha participación axeitada do alumnado en ditas prácticas. Esta investigación sitúase dentro da metodoloxía cualititiva, e mais especificamente no estudo de caso. A estratexia empregada para a análise dos datos obtidos é a análise de discurso, coa conseguinte construción das rúbricas necesarias para dar resposta aos obxectivos de investigación.