When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific Issue

Research in Science Education

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 67-90

  Albe, Virginie ^a  

^a ENFA   (France)

Author keywords

Group discussions; Social interactions; Socio scientific issue

Indexed keywords

EID: 38049138642     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Albe, V. (2005). Positions d'tudiants et d'tudiantes sur une question techno-scientifique controversée: La dangerosité des téphones cellulaires [Students positions on a technoscientific controversial issue on mobile phone danger]. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 5 (3), 361-376.
2. 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.
3. Bader, B. (2003). Interprétation d'une controverse scientifique: Stratégies argumentatives d'adolescentes et d'adolescents quécois [Interpretation of a scientific controversy: Argumentative strategies of teenagers in Quebec]. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 3 (2), 231-250.
4. 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.
5. Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 677-695.
10. Dewhurst, D. (1992). The teaching of controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26, 153-163.
11. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's image of science. Buckhingham, UK: Open University Press.
12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287-312.
13. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
14. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Routledge.
15. Fensham, P. J. (2002). De nouveaux guides pour l'alphabétisation scientifique. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 2, 133-150.
16. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Green, J. L., & Dixon, C. N. (1994) Talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 5, 231-239.
21. Harré, R., & Gillet, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Hill, G. L. C. (1989). Students' 'untutored' beliefs about natural phenomena: Primitive science or commonsense? Science Education, 73 (2), 155-186.
23. 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
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Kelly, G., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533-559.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-689.
32. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
33. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
34. Kutnick, P., & Rogers, C. (Eds.). (1994). Groups in schools. London: Cassell.
35. 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.
36. Latour, B. (1989). La science en action [Science in action]. Paris: La d'couverte.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
40. Mondada, L. (2005). Chercheurs en interaction [Researchers in interactions]. Geneva, Switzerland: Le savoir Suisse.
41. 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.
42. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
43. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (4), 411-424.
44. 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.
45. Pedretti, E., & Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 463-485.
46. 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.
47. Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and instruction, 11 (3 & 4) (Special issue).
48. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
49. 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.
50. Roth, W.-M., & Désautels, J. (Eds.). (2002) Science education as/for social action. New York: Peter Lang.
51. 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.
52. Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 637-658.
53. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (5), 513-536.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57. 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.
58. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.) (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.
59. Zeidler, D. L. (1997).The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
60. 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.