Abstract
This chapter discusses argumentative interactions about a socio-scientific issue with a focus on the processes of negotiation involved in building a shared argument in a decision-making context. Argumentative interactions can be seen as processes involving negotiations (Baker in The role of communication in learning to model. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 303–324, 2002, Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 127–144, 2009). This study examines how preservice teachers (N = 85; 20 small groups) negotiate a range of contents (negotia), such as task goals, strategies for carrying on the task, meanings, choices, and justifications for them. The context is a debate about diets, vegetarian versus omnivorous, a question involving dimensions such as nutritional, ecological (both of them scientific), ethical, socioeconomic, or cultural. The research objective is to examine the processes of negotiation about the choice or option to be agreed by the group (vegetarian, vegan, omnivorous), and about the evidence and justification to be employed to support the option, expressed in these research questions: (1) Which dimensions have greater weight in the negotiation processes and in the final decision? (2) Which patterns, in terms of strategies and negotiation levels, reveal the negotiation paths in four small groups? A detailed analysis of the negotiation in one group illustrates how it proceeds from opposed alternatives and initial rejections, through a series of offers and acceptances, involving actors in an appropriation of dialogical contributions from others, which finally made possible reaching a consensus through mutual concessions. The influence of the features of the task and its multidisciplinary dimensions, in particular cultural values, is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Achieve. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Baker, M. J. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5(2), 199–254.
Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In P. Coirier & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Baker, M. J. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, M. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genre and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptation of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 473–498.
Brocos, P., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016). Analysis of justifications in pre-service teachers’ socio-scientific arguments about diets. Paper presented at the European Researchers in Didactics of Biology (ERIDOB) conference, Karlstad.
Brocos, P., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (in press). What to eat here and now: Contextualization of scientific argumentation from a place-based perspective. In I. Sánchez-Tapia (Ed.), Contextualizing science education for social justice. Dordrecht: Springer.
Buty, C., & Plantin, C. (Eds.) (2008). Argumenter en classe de sciences [Engaging in argumentation in science classrooms]. Lyon: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.
Cohen, L. J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2012). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 1–46). Los Angeles: Sage.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eshel, G., & Martin, P. A. (2005). Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interactions, 10, 1–17.
Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methods. London: Routledge.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international comprehensive course companion (pp. 69–80). Rotterdam: Sense.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, (2015). Argumentation. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 54–59). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Puig, B., Bravo, B., & Crujeiras, B. (2014). The role of discursive contexts in argumentation. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Pittsburgh, PA, March 30–April 2.
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014). Developing and using an S3R model to analyze reasoning in web-based cross-national exchanges on sustainability. Science Education, 98, 517–542.
Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles. [The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969].
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1979). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Bern: Lang. [(Social interaction and cognitive development in children). London: Academic Press, 1980].
Plantin, C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions [The good reasons of emotions]. Bern: Lang.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
Acknowledgements
The work is supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO); Contract Grant Numbers: EDU2012-38022-C02-01 and EDU2015-6643-C2-2-P. Pablo Brocos’ work is supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, scolarship code FPU14/03755.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annex 1. Task Handout: Building an Argument About Diets
Annex 1. Task Handout: Building an Argument About Diets
-
1.
The task consists of producing an argument about the dilemma of dietary choice working in small groups . The goal is to reach consensus within the group about what diet is the best choice (conclusion). It may be noted the diversity of possible choices: vegan diet, vegetarian diet, omnivorous with meat, omnivorous with fish, meat free days (e.g., Ghent’s Thursday Veggie Day), etc. The conclusion must be supported by data (evidence), drawn from the information handouts (documents 1–5), the wiki (online) and previous knowledge (justification), which may help to relate data and evidence. Your argument can take values into account .
-
2.
Dimensions: Notice that this dilemma involves different dimensions (cultural—personal, ecological, ethic, nutritional, socioeconomic), so you can study the information handouts (data) and discuss partial questions separately such as: What is best from a cultural/personal point of view? What is best for the environment and the Earth? What is best for economy and society? What is best from an ethic point of view? What is best for health and nutrition? The answers to these questions (partial conclusions) can function as different lines of reasoning that can be integrated into a final conclusion.
-
3.
Criteria for strong arguments:
-
Taking the available evidence (data, information) into account.
-
Stating the conclusion clearly.
-
Specifying which pieces of evidence support the conclusion and which ones refute or criticize the choices rejected.
-
Indicating what theories or knowledge were used to relate data and conclusions (justifications). If that is the case, specify what values support the conclusion.
-
Integrating as many dimensions as possible in the argument.
-
-
4.
Writing a persuasive argument: Once consensus is reached, you must write down your argument in order to persuade, for instance, another student of the faculty that your choice is the best one.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Brocos, P. (2017). Processes of Negotiation in Socio-scientific Argumentation About Vegetarianism in Teacher Education. In: Arcidiacono, F., Bova, A. (eds) Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59083-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59084-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)