Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

When Scientific Knowledge, Daily Life Experience, Epistemological and Social Considerations Intersect: Students’ Argumentation in Group Discussions on a Socio-scientific Issue

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Socio-scientific issues in class have been proposed in an effort to democratise science in society. A micro-ethnographic approach has been used to explore how students elaborate arguments on a socio-scientific controversy in the context of small group discussions. Several processes of group argumentation have been identified. Students’ arguments were elaborated from scientific data, common ideas and epistemological and strategic considerations. Students’ social interactions influenced the patterns of argumentation elaborated within the group discussions. Implications of this study for the teaching of socio-scientific issues in class are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albe, V. (2005). Positions d’étudiants et d’étudiantes sur une question techno-scientifique controversée: la dangerosité des téléphones cellulaires [Students positions on a technoscientific controversial issue on mobile phone danger]. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 5(3), 361–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small group discussions in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, B. (2003). Interprétation d’une controverse scientifique: Stratégies argumentatives d’adolescentes et d’adolescents québécois [Interpretation of a scientific controversy: Argumentative strategies of teenagers in Quebec]. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 3(2), 231–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, J. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 1039–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In Costello, P. S. M. & Mitchell, S. (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation (p. 84–98). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, T. (2005). What counts as knowing: Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2002). De nouveaux guides pour l’alphabétisation scientifique. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 2, 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilly, M. (1988). Interactions entre pairs et constructions cognitives: Modèles explicatifs [Peers interactions and cognitive constructions: Explicative models]. In Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Nicolet, M. (Eds.). Interagir et connaître. Enjeux et régulations sociales dans le développement cognitif [Interact and know. Stakes and social regulations in cognitive development] (pp. 19–28). Cousset, Switzerland: Delval.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M. M. (2005, August). Developing personal values and argumentation skills through decision-making discussions about biological conservation. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

  • Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for literacy educators: Research in the communicative and visual arts (pp. 181–202). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. L., & Dixon, C. N. (1994) Talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 5, 231–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R., & Gillet, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. L. C. (1989). Students’ ‘untutored’ beliefs about natural phenomena: Primitive science or commonsense? Science Education, 73(2), 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hind, A., Leach, J., & Ryder, J. (2001). Teaching about the nature of scientific knowledge and investigation on AS/A level science courses (Technical report). Leeds, UK: University of Leeds

  • Hind, A., Leach, J., Ryder, J., & Prideaux, N. (2001). Teaching about the nature of scientific knowledge and investigation on AS/A level science courses. Leeds, UK: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P, Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing Science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1996) Student’s interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 693–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. (2001). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittleson, J., & Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutnick, P., & Rogers, C. (Eds.). (1994). Groups in schools. London: Cassell.

  • Larochelle, M. (2002). Rapport au savoir et socialisation à la cité scientifique [Relation to knowledge and socialisation to the scientific city]. In Actes des 3èmes journées d’études franco-québécoises (pp. 58–76). Paris: La Sorbonne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1989). La science en action [Science in action]. Paris: La découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., & Lewis, J. (2002). The role of students’ epistemological knowledge in the process of conceptual change in science. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002) Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2005). Chercheurs en interaction [Researchers in interactions]. Geneva, Switzerland: Le savoir Suisse.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, D. K., & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “Little Scientists?” Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 234–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E., & 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 

  • Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and instruction, 11(3 & 4) (Special issue).

  • Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 637–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, D. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2001, March). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, St Louis, MO.

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A. (2003). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.) (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997).The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge Prof. John Leach and Jim Ryder for the thoughtful insights and suggestions made on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Toulouse EducAgro, ENFA, 2 route de Narbonne, Castanet Tolosan, 31326, France

    Virginie Albe

Authors
  1. Virginie Albe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginie Albe.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

From HIND, A., LEACH, J., RYDER, J. & PRIDEAUX, N. (2001). Teaching about the nature of scientific knowledge and investigation on AS/A level science courses. Leeds, UK: CSSME.

  1. Research Project 1

    David De Pomeroi and team – University of Nottingham

    The team of researchers beamed microwaves at tiny nematode worms. These were chosen because their cell biology is simple and well understood. In one experiment the team found that larvae exposed to an overnight dose of microwaves wriggled less and grew 5% faster than those in a control group. This suggests that microwaves may be speeding up cell division. The group now plans to investigate whether a similar effect can be observed in mammalian cells, a finding that would raise fears about a possible link with cancer.

  2. Research Project 2

    John Tattersal and team – Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

    This team exposed slices of rat brain to microwaves. They found that the exposure reduced electrical activity and weakened response to stimuli. The brain slices were taken from the hippocampus, a part of the brain with a role in learning. However John Tattersall has indicated he thinks the hippocampus is too deeply buried within the brain to be affected by mobile phones. His more recent research has shown that nerve cell synapses may become more receptive to changes linked to memory when they are exposed to microwaves.

  3. Research Project 3

    Alan Preece and colleagues – University of Bristol

    The group used a device that mimicked the emissions of mobile phones to test the responses of volunteers asked to recall words and pictures shown on a screen. The microwave emissions had no effect on recall but when response time was tested by asking the volunteers to press a button matching a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ image on screen those with the headsets switched on showed about a 4% improvement in response times. The effect was seen in two separate groups of volunteers.

  4. Research Project 4

    Michael Repacholi and research group – Royal Adelaide Hospital

    The group spent 18 months exposing mice to emissions that mimicked those of mobile phones. Genetically modified mice have been used to increase their susceptibility to lymphoma in order to make the experiment more sensitive. They found that twice as many mice exposed to radiation developed lymphomas as those in the control group.

  5. Research Project 5

    Brooks Air Force Base experts – San Antonio, Texas

    Experts used mice genetically engineered to be susceptible to breast tumours in a similar study to Repacholi’s. They exposed the mice to radiation for 20 hours a day for 18 months. There was no increase in the rate of tumours in these mice.

  6. Research Project 6

    Lennart Hardell – Orebro Medical Centre

    A study was made of 209 people with brain tumours and a control group of 425 without brain tumours. They found that mobile phone users were no more likely to develop tumours than non-users. Of those with tumours however, mobile phone users were 2.5 times more likely to develop tumours close to their ‘phone ear’ than the non-users. There were only 13 mobile phone users with tumours in the study group so the result may not be statistically significant.

  7. Research Project 7

    George Carlo – Wireless Technology Research, Washington DC

    Here they studied 450 people with brain tumours and a control group of 425. There was no general link between brain cancers and mobile phone use. However the study identified a smaller group of 30 people who had a particular form of brain tumour called a neurocytoma. Forty percent of this group were mobile phone users. This compared with the control group without neurocytomas, in which only 18% were mobile phone users. This result is statistically significant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albe, V. When Scientific Knowledge, Daily Life Experience, Epistemological and Social Considerations Intersect: Students’ Argumentation in Group Discussions on a Socio-scientific Issue. Res Sci Educ 38, 67–90 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation