Interprétation d’une controverse scientifique: Stratégies argumentatives d’adolescentes et d’adolescents québécois

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 231-250

  Bader, Barbara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011463093     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150309556562     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aikenhead, G.S. (1997). Students’ views of the influence of culture on science. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 419-428.
2. Aikenhead, G.S. (1987). High-school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology-society. III. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 71(4), 459-487.
3. Aikenhead, G.S. (1983). Science in the schools: Social issues. Toronto: University of Toronto.
4. 2 emissions and the problem of ozone layer depletion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1096-1111.
5. Bader, B. (2001). Etude de conversations estudiantines autour d’une controverse entre scientifiques sur la question du réchauffement climatique. Thèse de doctorat non publiée, Université Laval.
6. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking. A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge and Paris: Cambridge University Press/Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
7. Bostrom, A., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., & Read, D. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 959-970.
8. Boyes, E. & Stanissteet, M. (1998). High school students’ perceptions of how major global environmental effects might cause skin cancer. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2), 31-36.
9. Callon, M., Lascoumes P. & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.
10. De Boer, G.E. (2000) Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 582-601.
11. Désautels, J., Fleury, S., & Garrison, J. (2002). The enactment of epistemological practice as subversive social action, the provocation of power, and anti-modemism. In W-M. Roth & J. Désautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New-York: Peter Lang.
12. Désautels, J., & Larochelle, M. (1998). The epistemology of students: The ‘thingified’ nature of scientific knowledge. In B J. Fraser and K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 115-26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Désautels, J., & Larochelle, M. (1989). Qu’est-ce que le savoir scientifique ? Points de vue d’adolescents et d'adolescentes (pp. 237-269). Ste-Foy: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osbome, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
15. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
16. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
17. Fountain, R.-M. (1999). Socio-scientific issues via actor network theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 339-358.
18. Fourez, G. (1997). Science teaching and the STL movement: A socio-historical view. In E. Jenkins (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (vol. 6, pp. 43-57). Paris: UNESCO.
19. Fourez, G. (2002). La construction des sciences (4e ed). Bruxelles/Montréal: De Boeck-Wesmael.
20. Helms, J., & Carlone, H. (1999). Science education and the commonplaces of science. Science Education, 83(2), 233-245.
21. Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83(6), 775-796.
22. Jenkins, E. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703-710.
23. Joussaume, S., & Guiot, J. (1999). Comment concilier modèles numériques et données ? Reconstruire les chauds et froids de l’Europe. La Recherche, 321, 54-59.
24. Kolsto, S.D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(4), 291-310.
25. Kolsto, S.D. (2001b). ‘To trust or not to trust’ - pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9) 877-901.
26. Larochelle, M., & Désautels, J. (2001). Les enjeux socioéthiques des désaccords entre scientifiques: un aperçu de la construction discursive d’étudiants et étudiantes. Revue canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et de la technologie, 7(1), 39-60.
27. Larochelle, M., Désautels, J., & Ruel, F. (1995). Les sciences à l’école: portrait d’une fiction. Recherches sociographiques, 36(3), 527-555.
28. Lenoir, Y. (1992). La vérité sur l’effet de serre: le dossier d’une manipulation planétaire. Paris: La Découverte.
29. McBean G., & Hengeveld, H. (2000). Communicating the science of climate change: A mutual challenge for scientists and educators. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 9-25.
30. Millar, R., Driver, R., Leach, J., and Scott, P. (1993). Students’ understanding of the nature of science: Students’ awareness of science as a social enterprise. Leeds/York, UK: University of Leeds (Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education) and University of York (Science Education Group), Working Paper no. 9.
31. Potter, J. (1997). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
32. Roberts, D. (1983). Science in the schools: Scientific literacy. Toronto: University of Toronto.
33. 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(2), 145-179.
34. Roth, W-M. and McGinn, M.K. (1998). Knowing, researching, and reporting science education: Lessons from science and technology studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 213-235.
35. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1-44.
36. Ryder, J., Leach, J. and Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201-219.
37. Seitz, F. (1996). Wall Street Journal, Open editorial. Consulté le 12 juin 1996 sur le site Web: http://www.sepp.Org//ipcccont/Item05.htm
38. Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1996). Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology and Human Values, 2/(3), 275-302.
39. Thuillier, P. (1992). L’humanité saisie par l’effet de serre. La Recherche, 243(23), 515-517.
40. Wynne, B. (1997). Controverses, indéterminations et contrôle social de la technologie. Leçons du nucléaire et de quelques autres cas au Royaume-Uni. Dans O. Godard (dir.), Le principe de précaution dans la conduite des affaires humaines (pp. 149-178). Paris: Fondation maison des sciences de l’homme et Institut national de la recherche agronomique.
41. Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Zehr, S. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 85-103.