Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Positions d’étudiants et d’étudiantes sur une question technoscientifique controversée : la dangerosité des téléphones cellulaires

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Résumé

Nous avons tenté de cerner les raisons qui fondent les prises de position d’étudiants et d’étudiantes en formation dans le domaine des techniques électroniques, à propos de la question incertaine et controversée de la dangerosité des téléphones cellulaires. Les positions des étudiants et étudiantes ont été recueillies par écrit avant et après la réalisation en classe d’un jeu de rôle. Ils justifient principalement leurs positions sur la base d’idées courantes relatives aux effets des ondes sur la santé et, dans une moindre mesure, sur des considérations sociales et épistémologiques. La majorité d’entre eux se disent prêts à changer d’avis dans un sens ou dans un autre au terme de la simulation en autant, disent-ils, qu’on leur fournisse des preuves scientifiques. Leurs connaissances scientifiques et technologiques interviennent peu dans leur raisonnement, bien que les considérations sociales et épistémologiques tiennent une plus grande place pour informer leurs prises de position à propos de la dangerosité des téléphones cellulaires.

Executive Summary

Whenever they are immersed in the study of controversial techno-scientific questions, students are confronted by a ‘science-in-the-making’ (to use Latour’s expression (1989))—that is, a context in which scientists arc seen not to be in agreement and in which controversies generate uncertainty. How will students react to these situations? What arguments will they devise in order to develop a position? My present research is dedicated to questions such as these.

In the view of some researchers, students can be prompted to emphasize values (Fensham, 2002; Fleming, 1986; Grace & Ratclifie, 2002). For others, the social and epistemological considerations raised by students are the determining factors in the decisions they reach (Aikenhead, 1985; Ryder, 2001). The relationship to risk is also fundamental to students’ perspectives on these controversial questions (Kolstø, 2001). Finally, a number of researchers have questioned the worth of using scientific knowledges in decisions regarding socio-scientific issues (Irwin & Wynne, 1996; Kortland, 2001; Lewis, Leach, & Wood-Robinson, 1999; RatclifTe, 1997; Solomon, 1988; Tytler, Duggan, & Gott. 2001).

I have attempted to discern the justifications given by electronics technologies students for their positions concerning the uncertain and controversial issue of the danger posed by cellular telephones. Students’ positions were gathered in writing before and after an in-class role-playing exercise that simulated a debate on this issue. A debate about a techno-scientific controversy constitutes an opportunity to question the authority of science, to inquire into the disagreements and different interpretations of phenomena within the scientific community, and to grapple with the uncertainty of unstable knowledges. This debate was staged from the perspective of citizen education in the nature of the sciences, the aim of which is to provide citizens with the education they need to think critically about interactions between science, technologies, and society, as well as to make informed decisions with respect to questions raised by the techno-sciences and their accompanying spillovers. As such, this debate drew on a training module constructed by Hind, Leach, & Ryder (2001a) for the epistemological education of students.

The ten student participants were all training to become senior electronics technicians in Tunisia. They played the role of expert witnesses in a lawsuit in which an employee was suing his employer for his poor health, which had forced him to quit his job and which he ascribed to the use of a cellular telephone. The students were divided into two groups to defend the opposing theses that cellular telephones either were or were not dangerous to one’s health. They studied seven excerpts from research focusing on the occurrence of disease in animals, epidemiological surveys, and memory tests. Pre- and post-debate questionnaires were used to gather the students’ views concerning the danger posed by cellular telephones.

For the most part, the students justified their positions on the basis of widespread notions about the effects of microwaves on human health, on the one hand, and on social and epistemological considerations, on the other. Factors weighing in changes in students* opinions about the danger of cellular telephones included the demand for scientific proof, the influence of telephone companies, and disagreements between scientists. Few students, it is clear, drew on the research excerpts studied during the debate exercise and their interpretations differed. The students appeared to have appropriated scientific language; further, the conceptual errors noted prior to the debate were no longer in evidence once it had been completed. Decision making was little influenced by scientific and technological knowledge, while social and epistemological considerations, on the other hand, played a larger role. In response to the uncertainties and lack of consensus surrounding the research findings available to them, students tended to abide by overvalued scientific expertise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Références

  • Aikenhead, G.S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69, 453–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G.S. (1989). Decision-making theories as tools for interpreting student behavior during a scientific inquiry simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G.S. (2003). Review of research on humanistic perspectives in science curricula. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) 2003 Conference, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albe, V. et Simonneaux, L. (2003). Procès sur les téléphones mobiles: impact sur la réflexion épistémologique d’enseignants. Dans Recherches en Didactique des Sciences et des Techniques: Questions en débat sous la direction de V. Albe, C. Orange et L. Simonneaux (p. 253–260). Toulouse: ARDIST et ENFA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, B. (2003). Interprétation d’une controverse scientifique: stratégies argumentatives d’adolescentes et d’adolescents québécois. Revue canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies, 3(2), 231–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R.L. et Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulletin Officiel (1999). l’enseignement des sciences au lycée. Numéro hors-série n6, 12 août 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. et Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: wSeuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Désautels, J. et Larochelle, M. (1989). Qu’est-ce que le savoir scientifique? Points de vue d’adolescente et d’adolescentes. Ste-Foy: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewhurst, D. (1992). The teaching of controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy Education, 26, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenseger, N. (2000). Construire la crédibilité d’un énoncé scientifique dans l’espace public: la médiatisation des risques liés aux champs électromagnétiques émis par les téléphones portables. Dans Actes des XXIIès Journées Internationales sur la Communication, l’Education et la Culture Scientifiques et Industrielles, L’Education aux risques - santé, sécurité, environnement, sous la direction de A. Giordan, J.L. Martinand et D. Raichvarg (p. 87–94).

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. et Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s image of science. Buckhingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P.J. (2002). De nouveaux guides pour l’alphabétisation scientifique. Revue canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies, 2, 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fourez, G. (1994). Alphabétisation scientifique et technique. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordan, A. (1999). Comprendre, apprendre, gérer l’incertitude. Dans Les biotechnologies à l’école, sous la direction de L. Simonneux (p. 19–30). Dijon: Educagli éditions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard, O. (1997). Le principe de précaution dans la conduite des affaires humaines. Paris: Fondation des sciences de l’homme et INRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M.M. et Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilbert, L. et Melodie, D. (1993). l’idée de science chez les enseignants en formation: un lien entre l’histoire des sciences et l’hétérogénéitité des visions? Didaskalia, 2, 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hind, A., Leach, J. et Ryder, J. (2001a). Assessing Data Quality: Mobile Phones-Health Risk or Scare? London: The Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hind, A., Leach, J. et Ryder, J. (2001b). Teaching about the nature of scientific knowledge and investigation on AS/A level science courses. Technical report, University of Leeds, UK. http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hind, A., Leach, J., Ryder, J. et Prideaux, N. (2001). Teaching about the nature of scientific knowledge and investigation on AS/A level science courses. Leeds: CSSME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. et Wynne, G. (1996). Misunderstanding science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P. et Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolsto, S.D. (2001). Students’ decision-making models when facing a controversial socio-scientißc issue - the relevance of different kinds of knowledge. Paper presented at the ESERA 2001 Conference, Thessaloniki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortland, J. (2001). A problem posing approach to teaching decision making about the waste issue. Utrecht: Cdß Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Recherche (2000). Portables et cancer. No 337, décembre 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larochelle, M. et Désautels, J. (2001). Les enjeux des désaccords entre scientifiques: un aperçu de la construction discursive d’étudiants et étudiantes. Revue canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies, 1, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1989). La science en action. Paris: La découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J. (2001). Epistemological perspectives in science education research. Paper presented at the conference of the European Science Education Research Association in Thessaloniki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2003). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. et Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons engaging with the social context of science in schools. London: Wellcome Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., Leach, J. et Wood-Robinson, C. (1999). Attitude des jeunes face à la technologie génique. Dans Les biotechnologies à l’école, sous la direction de L. Simonneux (p. 65–96). Dijon: Educagri éditions. McGregor, D.G., Slovic, P. et Morgan, M.G. (1994). Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of risk-communication approach, Risk Analysis 14(5), 815–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (1999). Promoting rhetoric and argument in the science classroom. Paper presented at the conference of the European Science Education Research Association in Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: a rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oulton, C., Dillon, J. et Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411—424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E. et Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 463–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. et Désautels, J. (Eds.) (2002). Science education as/for social action. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, D.M. et Kelly, G.J. (2001). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Paper presented at the NARST Annual Meeting in St. Louis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, US: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2001a). Des situations-débats pour développer l’argumentation des élèves sur les biotechnologies: Compte rendu d’innovation. Didaskalia, 19, 137–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2001b). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issus in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1988). Science technology and society courses: Tools for thinking about social issues. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 379–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument (trad. 1993). Les usages de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Duggan, S., et Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albe, V. Positions d’étudiants et d’étudiantes sur une question technoscientifique controversée : la dangerosité des téléphones cellulaires. Can J Sci Math Techn 5, 361–376 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150509556666

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150509556666

Navigation