Résumé exècutif

Nous présentons dans cet article une recherche empirique sur l’intégration scolaire d’une controverse socioscientifique contemporaine, le réchauffement climatique. Une séquence d’enseignement interdisciplinaire a été développée en s’appuyant sur un modèle de la scolarisation de controverses socioscientifiques, selon la double visée d’intervention et d’analyse du cadre théorique du design-based research. Le modèle vise à documenter les dispositions à l’engagement dans l’étude de controverses socioscientifiques à l’école, via trois dimensions:

  • une dimension épistémologique consiste à étudier les savoirs et pratiques de référence mobilisés en classe à propos de controverses socioscientifiques, étant donné que celles-ci mobilisent des savoirs scientifiques, économiques, politiques, etc., dans des groupes sociaux divers qui se divisent publiquement entre eux et à l’intérieur de ces groupes.

  • une dimension porte sur la communication entre élèves à propos de l’étude en classe de controverses socioscientifiques, les recherches empiriques menées intégrant d’ailleurs souvent des activités de débats scolaires sous différentes formes et modalités.

  • une dimension relative à l’activité du groupe classe afin de documenter les modalités d’organisation des activités, de productions et d’évaluation d’étude de controverses socioscientifiques pour lesquelles les incertitudes priment, les discours sont divers et souvent contradictoires.

Dans ce cadre théorique, notre problématique porte plus spécifiquement sur la communication entre élèves et leurs relations aux savoirs lors d’un débat en classe sur le changement climatique. Ce débat a été spécifiquement conçu selon l’approche théorique de conception de situations d’enseignement. La séquence d’enseignement élaborée sur le réchauffement climatique pour des élèves de terminale (N = 15), en collaboration interdisciplinaire avec des enseignants de philosophie, de sciences physiques et de biologie, intègre une initiation à la communication non-violente (CNV). Ce choix relève de l’attitude de prudence que nous avons adoptée, suite à la revue de littérature, quant à la mise en oeuvre de débats en classe, afin d’éviter de confiner les discussions des élèves à des affrontements stériles sur le plan de l’apprentissage et générateurs de violence, ou à mimer en classe un simulacre de débat public inspiré des formes médiatiques de débat. Au contraire, nous envisageons le débat autour de controverses socioscientifiques comme un moyen d’apprentissage, d’exploration des controverses en vue d’une résolution citoyenne dans le cadre démocratique et comme alternative à la violence.

Les savoirs mobilisés par les élèves et les procédés argumentatifs développés au cours de ce débat ont été analysés. Sont mobilisés par les élèves dans le débat des savoirs sociaux ou naturels, des savoirs et pratiques de scientifiques et dans une moindre mesure des savoirs scolaires. Les élèves identifient les arguments de la controverse sur le réchauffement climatique et questionnent les expertises scientifiques et les savoirs des scientifiques, en particulier leur socialité. Les relations sciences-politique sont discutées par les élèves. Notre recherche encourage à poursuivre les efforts pour développer des situations éducatives qui permettraient aux élèves de reprendre le pouvoir pour ne pas se soumettre aux discours des autres, se sentir aptes et légitimes à participer aux décisions, à participer à la configuration de leur monde.

In France, recent reforms in science and technology education have stressed the social and educational aim to encourage students to participate as citizens in decisions on socioscientific issues (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale 2005). Science teaching in this perspective should train future citizens to cope with social problems associated with science and technology. For instance, in the recent past, global warming has become a major issue of concern at social, scientific, political, and economical levels. It has been introduced in education and this raises crucial questions for science education research.

Of particular interest to us is the nature of the discussion that occurs between students on socio-scientific issues (SSI). Previous research has shown that students tended to operate a dichotomy between scientific knowledge and claims related to global warming and to favor judgments (Klosterman and Sadler 2010). After instruction, students’ conceptual understanding of global warming increased (Gautier and Rebich 2005).

In line with the SSI teaching, argumentation is considered from linguistics as the discursive practices that have developed in the context of debate and have oriented from a question (Plantin 1996). Among the various perspectives on argumentation (Jiménez-Aleixandre and Erduran 2008), its aim here in this study is to support the development of students’ communicative competences and critical thinking to contribute to citizenship education. Learning to talk and write the languages of science (Kelly, Regev and Prothero 2008), including the rhetorical features (Kelly and Bazerman 2003) is central to the development of scientific literacy. Argumentation is therefore apprehended as both knowledge justification and persuasion. In this paper, a design-based research has been conducted to explore both students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation improvement regarding global warming as an SSI. Our research questions are the following: When debating on global warming, how do students interact with each other, and how do they develop arguments, and argue this issue? What knowledge do students rely on to develop their arguments?

SSI and argumentation

Social dilemmas linked to science and technology, termed socioscientific issues (SSI), have been introduced in science classrooms and have been investigated by science education researchers. A recent literature review on socioscientific issues has offered a categorization of twenty-four rigorous empirical investigations (Sadler 2009). SSI interventions have addressed students’ interest and motivation, content knowledge, nature of science understandings, higher-order thinking (i.e., argumentation, critical thinking, informal reasoning, decision-making, and reflective judgment), and community of practice.

The SSI research movement and more particularly research focused on students’ argumentation on SSI topics are investigated, with a more extended study on students’ argumentation about global warming. In line with previous approaches such as the Science-Technology-Society-Environment (STSE), the SSI movement offers a way to explore the nature of science and the interdependence of science and society (Sadler 2004). Moreover, the SSI movement focuses on democratizing science in society (Kolstø 2001). It then occupies a central role in the promotion of scientific literacy (Sadler and Zeidler 2005), and is aimed to contribute to citizenship education (Oulton, Dillon and Grace 2004).

Studies on argumentation practices showed enhancement of students’ argumentation in various SSI contexts. Some specific examples are teaching a unit on human genetics that explicitly included instruction on argumentation (Zohar and Nemet 2002); a WISE-based unit related to malaria (Tal and Hochberg 2003); marine issues (Tal and Kedmi 2006); biological conservation issues (Grace 2009); solid waste and recycling (Kortland 1996); and mining of natural resources (Pedretti 1999). In these studies, students’ argumentation, investigated through epistemic and rhetorical analysis, increased after the SSI teaching modules. Moreover, enhancement of student argumentation on SSI has been shown to be greater for low academic-level students (Dori, Tal and Tsaushu 2003). The enhancement of student argumentation on SSI has been shown to be highly related to teacher expertise in managing discussion in class (Harris and Ratcliffe 2005). This teacher expertise has been interpreted as playing a major role in the quality of pupils’ discourse (Levinson 2004) and students’ naïve epistemological representations may have limited the scope and extent of their argumentation (Albe 2008a).

Global warming (GW) can be apprehended as a socioscientific issue in science learning. For example, Sadler, Chambers and Zeidler (2004) used GW in their research with students. The researchers reported that students’ evaluation of contradictory expertise on global warming was influenced by their personal opinions and their scientific knowledge. The students also made assumptions based upon the nature of science that also influenced their evaluations, such as how data are interpreted and the interaction of science and society.

After implementation of teaching units on GW that explored the science of global change and addressed the social dimensions of the GW controversy, high school and university students expressed in post-tests more sophisticated understandings of global warming (Gautier and Rebich 2005). For example, high-school students understood the complex nature of the GW controversy and showed more accurate descriptions of the relationship between the greenhouse effect and global warming, the earth’s atmospheric properties, the particulate nature of gases, and the combustion reaction after a three-week unit on GW (Klosterman and Sadler 2010). Students also showed in post-tests a greater understanding of the complex nature of the GW controversy and of the sociopolitical challenges of GW (Sadler and Klosterman 2009).

Once more, GW is a relevant topic for high school and university students. In studies investigating student argumentation about GW, 7th grade students completed a 9-week unit on GW. As a final assignment, students participated in a debate on human contributions to global warming (Schweizer and Kelly 2005). The students used observationally-based climatic data sets provided to support their central argument; to negate the central argument of the opposing side; to present challenges to the opposing side; and to raise new scientific questions. Students’ arguments supporting human contributions to GW were not discussed during debates, and the authors reported that the most active and thoughtful dialogue occurred when students made arguments opposing human contributions to global warming.

University students in the Gautier and Rebich (2005) developed a better understanding of GW. The students followed a teaching sequence on the science and human aspects of global climate change with a focus on its policy implications. Students also negotiated an extension to the Kyoto protocol. End-of-class questionnaire data showed that students gained new scientific understanding of science phenomena, such as natural causes of climate change, greenhouse effect, contribution of biomass burning, carbon sink mechanisms, uncertainties in rates of change. The researchers reported that students with lower level of performance benefited the most. Moreover, students felt they had achieved a more detailed and accurate understanding of concepts, including some they understood before the sequence. Students also developed a better understanding of the political and economic dimensions of GW and addressed new scientific questions related to the role of oceans in climate change, and the impacts and benefits of GW for biological communities, regions and economy.

Similarly, university students in an oceanography course integrating science, technology, and writing to develop a scientifically literate citizenship engaged in inquiry activities within a simulation of an Earth Summit Framework (Kelly, Regev and Prothero 2005). Scientific argumentation was investigated through the epistemic and rhetorical analysis of individual students’ written tasks regarding plate tectonics and earth-climate issues. Well-evidenced arguments tended to be more frequent for the plate tectonics as compared to the earth’s climate. Well-argued papers showed a greater number of data than poorly-argued papers.

Following 3 weeks of instruction on argumentation and debate in an undergraduate Earth system science course, student assessment of arguments were often based on style over content (Clayton and Gautier 2006). This research suggests that students disconnected scientific knowledge when assessing claims related to global climate and favored judgments. Moreover, research on gene technology has suggested that properly designed curriculum can improve both conceptual understanding and argumentation (Lewis and Leach 2006). It often implies debates or group discussions as an approach for students to develop in this way. However, some authors warned that the social demand of group discussions may be too high. Research on small group discussions was explored in order to identify the problems related to student interactions in the classroom.

Small group discussions

Many problems can arise as communication in groups depends on social interactions of its members. Differences in discussion groups can lead to equity concerns (Kelly, Crawford and Green 2001). According to Kutnick and Rogers (1994), some group members can become “freeloaders” or “suckers”, and students can gang up on others; there can be polarisation between boys, girls, and those of different ability; some “classroom isolates” can be rejected. Dawes (2004) underlined that “group talk can help learners to exchange ideas, to have access to different perspectives and to make meaning together. However, this may not happen if groups of children remain unaware of talk as a tool for thinking together” (p. 693).

Some authors have shown that students’ group discussions were focused on the procedural aspects of the activities (Kittleson and Southerland 2004). Others have stressed that students have difficulty in regulating their interactions (Alexoupoulou and Driver 1997), and student conflicts can arise, particularly when engaging in SSI for which several social groups may present opposing explanations and emotions that are often communicated or implied. Students can be lead to argument on SSI in order to “win” a controversy rather to engage in its understanding (Albe 2008b). In this study, we took into account the communication difficulties that may arise for students to learn and engage in group discussions around GW. The study design was focused on student instruction and learning through non-violent communication. The teaching unit was aimed at student learning and group interaction. We examined group discussions and distinguished judgments from observations in their argumentation of issues relevant to understanding GW, and we accomplished this through a design-based research approach.

Design-based research

A teaching sequence was developed within the framework of the design-based research methodology (Cobb, Confrey, Di Dessa, Lehrer and Schauble 2003). Design experiments are theory-oriented tests to develop domain specific theories by studying both students’ learning and the means designed to support that learning. These theories, developed during an iterative design process featuring cycles of intervention and revision, are described as humble by their authors in the sense that they target domain-specific learning processes. They also are accountable to the activity of design. Ideally, design experiments provide a greater understanding of a learning ecology:

We use the metaphor of an ecology to emphasize that designed contexts are conceptualized as interacting systems rather than as either a collection of activities or a list of separate factors that influence learning. Beyond just creating designs that are effective and that can sometimes be affected by ‘tinkering to perfection’, a design theory explains why designs work and suggests how they may be adapted to new circumstances. (p. 9)

Thus, a learning ecology can be considered to be a complex interacting system involving multiple elements of different types. These elements include the problems that students are asked to solve, the kinds of discourse that are encouraged, the norms of participation that are established, the tools and related material means provided, and the practical means by which classroom teachers can orchestrate relations among these elements.

In our research, a learning ecology of a controversial SSI, that is GW, is aimed to explore the potential interrelations of science education, citizenship education, and environmental education. A theory-oriented initial design has been developed as a conjecture about the means of supporting a particular form of learning that is to be tested. This test is theory-driven within a model of socioscientific controversies ecology (Albe 2007), and specifically here, it is students’ knowledge and argumentation on global warming. According to the design-based research principles, this model is humble, local and contingent, and is revised along an iterative process. The model elaboration was the first phase of the research. This guided the following phase focused on the design of a teaching sequence for a small number of students (N = 15), ages 17–18 years-old. The school they attended specialized in technologies for agronomy and the environment, but recently the school curriculum was reformed to integrate GW. The aim of this study was to create a small-scale version of a learning ecology so that it can be studied in depth and detail, using GW as the science content.

Model of socioscientific controversies ecology

A socioscientific controversy is conceptualised as an issue that raises both controversies in scientific communities and in society or social groups concerned by the issue. For instance, genetically modified (GM) food and nanotechnologies both mobilize and divide specific communities, and those communities themselves (e.g., scientists, citizens, non-governmental organizations, journalists, companies, unions, engineers, politicians) each have particular concerns and dispositions regarding the issue. Similarly, students at school not only learn knowledge but also dispositions that lead to think and act in specific manners in specific situations. The idea of dispositions used here is in reference to the work of Bourdieu (1998) and pragmatic philosophy where action is not conceived as the unique result of a subject’s rationality. In the case of SSI, students’ dispositions may lead them to engage in diverse activities that can be described between two different positions—on one hand, an exploration of scientific concepts involved without taking into consideration social dimension of science, and on another hand, an exploration of the controversy of the different protagonists’ arguments in order to make an informed decision or to take part in public debates.

The model developed in this study focuses on dispositions involving a socioscientific controversy, GW. It has a double perspective: first, interventionist, to design what to do in the classroom; second, analytical, to identify what came out of teaching and document the research questions. The model of socioscientific controversies ecology is based on theoretical elements (represented in rectangles in Fig. 1), and has three independent dimensions that can offer analytical tools (represented in ovals in Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Model of socioscientific controversies ecology

Full size image

Moreover, a social and epistemological analysis of the socioscientific controversy (GW) has to be conducted as a first step of the teaching design within an STS perspective. The methodology proposed by Latour (2007) was used for the study on GW reported here. This social and epistemological analysis of the socioscientific controversy is to identify the modes of knowledge production of these controversies: data involved, the assumptions discussed, and theories mobilized. Research areas and fields of expertise are also identified and institutions in which scientists work, and when possible the funders of research and expertise produced. As the producers of knowledge exchange among themselves, it is also to analyze these situations of interlocution that can be more or less polemical. These interactions can serve to identify allies, spokesman, employers or opponents of protagonists of a controversy and the objects on which the controversies reside. The layouts of controversy by the protagonists themselves were also identified: experiments by scientific institutions, press campaigns releases, TV shows, commission surveys, public debates organized by the state, as in the case of citizens’ conferences or referendum, mobilization of citizens, petitions, demonstrations, etc. This first phase leads to the development of resources to be used in class, both for teachers and students. To document our research questions on students’ knowledge and argumentation on GW, the epistemological and communication dimensions of the model have been empirically tested within classroom activities.

Epistemological dimension of the model

An epistemological dimension accounts for the mobilization of knowledge and practices taken as references when dealing with a socioscientific controversy, as these may be diverse and diversely legitimated by the various social groups involved. For instance, when confronted with socioscientific controversies about GM food, a social and epistemological analysis of knowledge involved shows that the issue of GM food is known differently in the community “Monsanto”, having a position of biotechnologist or shareholder, than in the community “Confédération Paysanne” (French union of countrymen). There is no unique answer that could close the controversy, and science cannot provide “the truth”. When dealing with socioscientific controversies, knowledge is “in the making” and within communities with different theoretical, methodological, practical, or instrumental frameworks, the knowledge from each can be different and controversial.

Erasing knowledge elaboration processes, as it is done with stabilized knowledge taught in school subjects, would prevent development of an understanding of such controversies. A social and epistemological analysis of a socioscientific controversy that confronts scientific and technological enterprises invites the sociopolitical context of different positions in debate and opens a basis for the use of arguments from these different positions.

The interventionist perspective of the model constitutes a first stage to design teaching activities. It uses resources for classroom use (top-down arrow in Fig. 1), and allows us to study how the diversity of knowledge and practices involved in socioscientific controversies is taken into account in the classroom. This is the relation to knowledge and student–teacher knowledge contract (rectangles in Fig. 1).

The French theory of ecology of knowledge (Chevallard 2007) stated that knowledge content and its meaning depends on the communities where this knowledge “lives” (is elaborated and/or used). The relations to knowledge of a person or an institution can be identified by distinguishing three “knowledge genres”—reference knowledge, social or natural knowledge (i.e., knowledge socially shared, by specific social groups or society at large), and school knowledge (Legardez 2006). The knowledge contract refers to ways knowledge is shared between teacher and students. In the case of GW in this study, knowledge contract may for instance lead students and teachers to focus on experts’ reference knowledge only, for instance the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) knowledge and/or on the Petition Project on GW (Global Warming Petition Project by American Scientists, http://www.petitionproject.org/). Alternatively, scientific reference knowledge and environmentalists’ reference knowledge or social knowledge on GW may “live” in the classroom.

Classroom activities dimension of the model

Another dimension of the model concerns classroom activities. Socioscientific controversies classroom activities often imply complex inter-relations between contextual, social, and conceptual elements. To understand classroom interactions, it may be useful to consider other elements than strictly knowledge, such as organization, production, and assessment modalities.

Concerning organization modalities, from the “action variables” of French educational research on teacher activities (Bru 1991), several variables have been mobilized in the classroom, such as student groupings, including size and composition of groups, roles within the groups; resources uses, including materials, documents, Internet search; study sites, including the documentation center of the school, museums, research labs, etc. For production modalities, literature on SSI may be provided so that students may gather information, elaborate on ideas, write reports or posters, give oral presentations, use Internet sites or make maps of the controversies, create documents for the media or local politicians, participate in a class simulation of public debate, or debate with experts. As part of the assessment modalities for this study, students were asked to formulate four recommendations to politicians concerning energy choices in the context of GW. This situation was rooted in the French context at the present time of the teaching session, where political decisions related to energy choices were discussed. This corresponded both to a choice to confront students with an authentic issue and for students to work within the context of French politics.

Communication dimension of the model

Finally, the communication dimension of the model accounted for students’ ideas and discourse confrontations when dealing in class with socioscientific controversies. We referenced the necessary dispositions for discussing a controversial issue proposed by Levinson (2006) and the notion of “exploratory talk” discussed by Mercer (1996). Mercer described “exploratory talk” in small group discussions as critical but constructive discussions about each speaker’s ideas. All group members are invited to contribute to the discussion, all relevant information is shared, and opinions and ideas are respected and considered. When challenges are made, they are backed up with argumentation and alternative viewpoints are suggested. The group seeks to reach agreement before taking a decision or acting.

“Communicative virtues” (Burbules and Rice 1991, cited in Levinson 2006) have been proposed as necessary dispositions to communicate across differences. As quoted by Levinson (2006, p. 1213), these can be seen as “a cluster of intellectual and affective dispositions that together promote open, inclusive and undistorted communication” (Rice and Burbules 1992, p. 37). Levinson (2006, pp. 13–14) has similarly described dispositions necessary to attempt “dialogue across differences”

  • Procedural actions: there is agreement about rules of conduct (e.g., allowing people to speak in turn).

  • Moral obligations: there are expectations that people will speak the truth reflecting what they mean and that discussants are held to an obligation to speak the truth.

  • Freedom: participants are not subject to any constraint that may prevent them from stating their opinions.

  • Equality: people believe they have something to learn from everybody.

  • Respect: there is respect for persons where any discussion is underpinned by certain moral values so that participants will be engaged in the protection of those values. Such a discussion, for example, will not involve respect for persons if a participant is abused because of ethnic origin, physical appearance, and so forth.

  • Openness: participants are open in that they are prepared to be swayed by the other’s point of view if it is sufficiently persuasive (Bridges 1979).

Our literature review showed that when dealing with SSI emotions are involved and students often have difficulties in regulating their social interactions. Therefore, the teaching sequence designed within the model integrated an initiation to non-violent communication.

Interdisciplinary initial design

A small interdisciplinary research team was composed of five persons: two teacher experimenters, one philosophy teacher and one biology teacher; one trainer in non-violent communication, and two science education researchers (the authors of this paper). Ongoing relationships with practitioners are sustained by the negotiation of a shared enterprise. Regular debriefing and planning sessions were held where we made interpretations for understanding the phases of the study and planned prospective events. These sessions were the sites where the study was generated and communicated (Cobb et al. 2003). The sessions lasted approximately 2 h each and were organized after and before each teaching session. Each teaching session was analyzed and every decision for content and classroom activities was discussed.

The teaching sequence consisted of five teaching sessions during the second semester of the 2007–2008 academic year. The first two sessions of the teaching sequence lasted 1 day and a half, and was taught two times in the same week. The sessions were dedicated to teaching non-violent principles with a focus on listening and empathy (i.e., observation, feeling, need, demand). Debates were also organized on themes (drugs, sport, GMF) that were co-decided between students and the interdisciplinary research team. Detailed analysis of the two sessions has been reported elsewhere (Albe and Gombert 2010). The third session took place 1 month and a half after the previous sessions and lasted 2 h. This session was dedicated to a collective view and debates about the film “An inconvenient truth” by David Guggenheim with Al Gore.

The fourth session took place 2 weeks after the third session and lasted 2 h. It was focused on a simulation of a citizens’ conference on global warming and was the object of analysis presented in this paper. The last session also took place 2 weeks after the previous session and lasted 2 h. It was focused on a collective analysis on the non-violent communication initiation and role of citizens (students representing different perspectives or stakeholders) regarding scientific and political issues from the case experienced on global warming. The research team also showed examples of students discourse analysis for information and validation.

The research team assumed responsibility for instruction during all of the classroom sessions. Teaching sessions were both aimed as learning activities and data collection. Data included field notes of the researchers, audio and video tapes of all classroom activities (i.e., teacher-driven lessons, students group work, and debates), and students’ small group reports and individual notes.

School simulation of a citizens’ conference on global warming

According to the design-based research principles, design elaboration focused on the kinds of discourse that were encouraged and the norms of participation that were established (Cobb et al. 2003). These elements were considered within the communication dimension of the model. During the simulation of a citizens’ conference on GW, students were asked to play different roles. Two experts had to present the thesis of the IPCC on GW; two experts had to present an alternative thesis on climate; seven students composed the citizens’ panel and had to question experts; two non-violent communication regulators had to intervene during discussions to help the development of non-violent interactions; and two chairwomen were in charge of note taking and conference synthesis at the end of the session. Roles were attributed to students by the interdisciplinary research team in order to facilitate students’ engagement in the activity and argumentation. We tried to avoid student groupings that could provide opportunities for interpersonal conflictual exchanges, unrelated to the topic.

The simulation of the citizens’ conference was organized as follows: two experts presented to the whole class the thesis of IPCC on global warming (5 min); two experts presented alternative thesis on climate (5 min); and the citizens’ panel, experts, non-violent communication regulators, and a chairwomen debated (15 min). After the debate, students wrote specific reports according to their roles (10 min). Then citizens presented to the whole class their recommendations (5 min). Finally, a discussion followed on these recommendations. Using previous students’ debates with reports by non-violent communication regulators and a synthesis report by chairwomen, a whole class group discussion session with the interdisciplinary research team ended the simulation (20 min).

To inform their discussions and prepare for the citizens’ conference (15 min), each small group of students was given specific documents, according to the design-based research first phase. Students’ documents were constructed by the interdisciplinary research team after a social and epistemological analysis of GW (Albe 2008a) within theoretical and methodological frameworks of science studies (Latour 2007). The form of the documents and number of arguments in each respected an ideological balance.

Analysis of the students’ debates

Within the framework of the model of socioscientific controversial issues ecology, several analyses were conducted on students’ debates on GW during the simulation of a citizens’ conference. All students’ debates were fully transcribed and the unit of analysis was the collection of students’ utterances. Students’ discussions were investigated through the communication dimension of the model within the framework of non-violent communication (Rosemberg 1999). An analytical tool was developed to identify students’ rhetorical processes. The coding scheme is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Coding scheme for students’ communication
Full size table

Firstly, students’ utterances during debates that rely on one or more of the four couples of elements of non-violent communication (observation, feeling, need, demand) were identified in the transcripts. Secondly, students’ argumentation was studied by the identification of rhetorical processes developed during debates in reference to discursive psychology (Edwards 1997) in a science education research on small group discussions on global warming (Bader 2001). Bader’s categorization of rhetorical processes has been used. The coding scheme is presented in Table 2. The parenthetical phrases refer to the number assigned to the utterance during the process of coding. Rhetorical processes may be linked to the identity of protagonists of the debates as with authority or interest attributions to give weight or on the opposite to discredit their discourse. Another category has been added in reference to discursive psychology (Potter 1997) on position of debate protagonists as in our case of simulation of a citizens’ conference, several actors are involved. Rhetorical processes also refer to argument content independently of protagonists with use of truisms, proverbs, reference to empirical data, focus on the frequency of events, over detailed description of an event.

Table 2 Coding scheme for students’ rhetorical processes
Full size table

Thirdly, knowledge students rely on during debates have been identified and classified according to the three “knowledge genres” considered in the model: social or natural knowledge, reference knowledge, school knowledge. The coding scheme is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Coding scheme for students’ knowledge
Full size table

As a first step, each researcher independently identified in the whole transcripts students’ utterances that included non-violent communication elements and classified students’ rhetorical processes and knowledge following each of the three coding schemes. All analysis was coded manually. As a second step, researchers discussed individual analysis. Any difference in the classification of students’ communication, arguments, and knowledge was carefully examined. The categories in each coding scheme were refined. As a third step, another round of analysis was conducted by each researcher. To enhance trustworthiness of analysis, the analysis conducted by the iterative process was submitted to other science education researchers and to one teacher whose class participated in the study. The average inter-rater consistency was 89 %. Member checking was also used. Analysis was submitted to the participants of the study in order to get corrections, clarifications, or confirmations of the credibility of researchers’ interpretations.

Results of student citizens’ conference on global warming

Data of the results have been selected when they represented analysis of participants’ interventions. The acronyms used are U1, U2… for utterance number 1, 2… etc., of the transcript, and students are identified according to their roles during the simulation of a citizens’ conference. The two experts of the thesis of IPCC on global warming were named EG1 and EG2Footnote 1; the two experts of the alternative thesis on climate were named E1 and E2; the seven students of the citizens’ panel were identified by C1 to C7; and the two non-violent communication regulators were named NVC1 and NVC2.

In this results section, the model is represented through the exemplars of utterances that were collected and analyzed. We begin with the communication dimension of the model to show assessments of non-violent communication in the discussion of GW issues.

Communication dimension: students’ non-violent communication

From the simulation of the citizens’ conference transcript, six (out of 252) utterances of students playing the roles of non-violent communication regulators were identified. These utterances focused on the necessity to take into account non-violent communication (U80, NVC1), not intervene when someone else was speaking (U133, NVC2), and to discuss with all citizens at the address of one expert (U191, U193, U196, U209, NVC1). The utterances were assigned to the category of judgment as defined in the observation dimension of the non–violent communication framework (Table 1):

U205 E1: [E1 reads the document] “Some scientists have indicated the absence of scientific consensus on global warming… Well maybe you don’t understand me–you are the nobody.”Footnote 2

U209 NVC1: “Hey mister [to E1], there is judgment on citizens.”

The two students who were acting as non-violent communication regulators during the simulation of the citizens’ conference also reported this exchange on their written reports and elaborated on the exchange after the debate. They underlined the judgment utterances that the experts made to the citizens and also indicated an absence of respect. They also reported an exchange where the term “Mister Freeze” (in France, a trade-name of an iced candy for children) as by the citizens as a way to ridicule an expert that presented himself as an “ice specialist.”

Students’ rhetorical processes

Identity of debate protagonists

First, analysis of rhetorical processes during the debate in the form of a citizens’ conference showed positions of debate protagonists and argument content, which were the two large categories of our coding scheme (Table 2). Rhetorical processes referred to authority attributed to a participant of the debate and to reliance on empirical data by students. Interest attributions were the processes most developed by students to discredit scientific results or to discredit an expert. Position dealt with distance or proximity of the protagonists to the issues debated.

Authority

A student acting as an expert opposed to the IPCC thesis of global warming referred to the temperature increase graph showed in the film with Al Gore and reported on this the first page of the two expert documents (U2, E1):

To begin with, two things–this increase that is showed in their famous graph is on a too short period…

The use of the expression “famous graph”Footnote 3 may be analyzed as a focus on the popularity of such data that would provide authority for the protagonists that rely on it, the IPCC for instance, making their discourse difficult to be discredited. Perhaps this was the aim of the utterance and reference to the graph. In the same utterance U2, student E1 made reference to “field scientists” as to weight the idea of an authentic and reliable work. He also presented such scientists as ones “that don’t have to prove themselves” and that “worry to do research” by opposition as the ones that “only speak” (U244). By such a process, E1 tended to discredit the authority of experts that comment on the research done by others and communicate their expertise to the IPCC group.

During the debate, in response to questions on links between experts, politicians, and firms, student E1 answered “we, we are scientists” (U186) that may be interpreted as a process that closes questioning and assures authority on an image of science as neutral and independent and true.

Several moments during the debate, students acting as experts were named by students-citizens (U77) and non-violent communication regulators (U193, U195, U211) and named themselves by using the term “Mister” (U59, U61, U72, U156, U169, U172, U175, U201, U224, U240). It is noticeable that this term was not used to speak to students-citizens and non-violent communication regulators. This rhetorical process contributes to strengthen experts’ authority. However, other rhetorical processes can discredit experts’ authority. For instance, a citizen (C1) named the ice specialist “Mister Freeze” (U231) to ridicule him.

Authority relations also exerted when a student acting as an expert named a student acting as citizen as “nobody” (U207), and students latter described themselves in the following exchanges as “simple nobody” (U221). Such rhetoric contributes to reinforce a barrier between experts and citizens, disqualified by language, and therefore supposed not to be able to understand: “Well maybe you don’t understand me you are the… nobody” (U205, E1). Moreover, a demand from citizens to delegate solutions elaboration to experts was expressed (U171, U221). By such a process, experts’ authority was strengthen as citizens considered them as the only ones able to understand the problems.

Interest attributions

A large majority of students’ utterances concerned neutrality and reliability of research works and research funding. Crucial issues of science, expertise, politics, relationships, and political use of expertise that may differ within a democratic system were also raised by students. Several times students’ utterances focused on a description of a scientist interest-free activity aimed to “record”, “analyze” and “propose solutions”, particularly from students-citizens. A different description focused on other scientists’ work analysis and critique was expressed to discredit previous argumentation. An example was when expert EG2, defending the IPCC thesis, questioned expert E1, defending alternative IPCC thesis:

EG2: Mister E1, you–you are paid to study our sol[utions]… what we propose and to–try to refute them? Isn’t it? Aren’t you paid to do that? (U175)

On two occasions, citizen C2 asked the students acting as experts opposed to the IPCC thesis about the institutions they work for or the origins of research funding and personal income (U13, U15). Similar questions were addressed by an expert defending alternative IPCC thesis when attributing financial interests to the IPCC experts. The former answered by following the idea expressed by citizen C2 with attribution to experts defending alternative IPCC thesis of a financial link with “big polluting companies” and funding by “Mister Bush” (U179):

EG1 : …if you insinuate that we–we are working for the state, I can absolutely insinuate that you are working for the big polluting companies as Mister Bush who pays–who pays to some Third World countries. (U179)

In those interactions with respective interest attributions, citizen C2 also raised a link between experts opposed to the IPCC thesis and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (U180): “[they work] for the NASA.

There were also instances where the students during the debate spoke about expertise without having any financial interest. For example, expert E1 refuted in several utterances a link between funding and research results by expressing that he worked independently or worked “totally without money” (U178). An expert defending IPCC thesis (EG1), when expressing that he had been selected by the government, refuted any financial link, stating “but they don’t give us money” (U158). The previous position led expert E1 to try to “demonstrate” (U40, U157) that there existed an influence from politicians on scientists of the IPCC experts group:

A government that’s political and politicians make scientists say what they want to. They use the ones they want. (U69)

In the same vein, the issue of political interests that Al Gore may have in diffusing the IPCC thesis in the film “An inconvenient truth” is raised by expert E2 twice (U44,U45) in response to citizen C1 asking about the political stake of the environment (U42). E2 also expressed that “we are supposed as scientists not to have a political opinion” (U52). This idea suggested that there was to be an absence of a link between science and politics. Elsewhere, expert E1 defended the argument that political practices of “recuperation of the accommodating scientists” (U159) called attention to a link.

Positions of debate protagonists

Positions of experts defending an alternative IPCC thesis were discussed several times and responses varied. Students seemed to position themselves as expert scientists that would have to master knowledge and to be politically-free and independent. At the beginning of the citizens’ conference when E1 hesitated in his presentation on empirical data about CO2 (carbon dioxide) bubbles (U2), a citizen asked for more clarity. E1 answered that he was not a specialist in that particular area. Expert E1′s position was raised later in the debate when a citizen called on information about the institution which E1 was working for (U15), in reference to the other experts group. He “works for the IPCC” (U20). For the first time, E1 answered that he did not know (U21), then proposed different positions, a Russian identity (U23), a position as “scientist” (U126), and then as the debate was ending remarked that “we are not here to give solutions” (U164). In the same expert group, E2 presented himself as a scientist supposed not to have political opinions (U52). Doing this, students express what they think scientists should be.

As E1 declared himself a Russian, expert EG1, defending IPCC thesis, declared himself as French, and the expert group as independent, and selected by his country’s government. Expert E1 did not accept this position and pointed out the paradoxical nature of being selected to represent a nation, yet being neutral (U71). This expert group also positioned themselves in reference to the work and activities of scientists and because of their work, they were selected:

We have been selected for our work (EG1, U70)… Well, we never have proposed so…solutions but we are not here to impose. We have asked for an enactment which is the Kyoto protocol which has been hum ratified by hum… (EG2, U86)… OK, OK, but we are not here to say we must do that (EG2, U117)… We don’t have to give advice. (EG1, U227)

Moreover, several times, the expert group defending IPCC thesis was called by citizens to reveal their position in the debate related to eventual links to the political sphere, and particularly using the example of the film with Al Gore. Students EG1 and EG2 refuted such a link (EG1, U119, U181):

EG1: Hum, Mister Al Gore relied on IPCC experts’ research, but in any case you saw IPCC experts inter… well intervene. H didn’t come to say you have to do this and that he relied on our work. (U124)

Experts were also asked several times by citizens to provide solutions concerning GW and energy choices (C3, U173; C2, U174; C2, U221). For instance, C2 declared that “it is not to us to find solutions we are only simple citizens” (U174) and “it is to you [experts] to agree, you are scientists” (U221).

Argument content

Second, analysis of rhetorical processes was shown in a second broad category of the coding scheme (Table 2). The argument content, though not a large number of utterances were coded in the category, there were utterances that were analyzed to show students’ communication of the GW issue (Fig. 2). For example, no rhetorical process based on truisms and proverbs were coded. Utterances of repetition, long duration, or overly detailed descriptions were not identified. Students did not develop rhetorical processes that depict numerous or high details of phenomena associated with global warming or its consequences were presented. Students however raised issues of research funding, questioned links between science and politics and scientists’ neutrality (particularly on a political level) within the category coded as empirical data.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Categorical proportions of rhetorical processes (proportions on the x-axis are %s of all the statements as a whole)

Full size image

Reference to empirical data

Utterances in this category focused on a description or reading of empirical data, interrogations, and data reliability in order to discredit IPCC experts’ arguments. The students’ utterances also involved critique related to an absence of empirical data in citizens’ questions to alternative IPCC experts. At the beginning of the citizens’ conference, expert E1 relied on “CO2 amount” in reference to “the air bubbles that have been confined” in ice (U1), and then declared an increase in temperature, stating “we could do precise measurements with thermometers and saw a 0.6° increase” (U2). It can also be noted that the use of the terms “precise measurements” contributed to reinforce data reliability.

The first utterance of expert E1 in the citizens’ conference was interpreted as a way to “set the scene” in reference to “the famous graph” presented in the film with Al Gore. Student E1 critiqued this graph, and based his argument on data reliability with thermometers placed on the stage. Before digital thermometers, measurements were with mercury thermometers underlying that using mercury thermometers and not digital thermometers brought in graph uncertainties: “At the beginning we were with our poor small mercury thermometers” (E1, U1).

During utterance U2 expert E1 also expressed that “by grouping data, they succeeded to give this graph.” Students relied on empirical data to discredit the IPCC experts’ group thesis on GW with a critique on results obtained from different data compilations, such as ice samples, various tree species, temperature measurements with traditional thermometers or digital ones. Student expert E1 added later during the debate that “numbers can come from anywhere” (U32) and that “their graphs are not valid” (U242).

An absence of empirical data was also expressed by students acting as citizens (C1, U234, U250) to discredit alternative IPCC thesis. Underlying IPCC expert groups, empirical data was available. Expert E1′s counter-argument was stated, suggesting that empirical data was also available for the alternative thesis to GW but that he did not show them during his presentation (U249). Reference to empirical data availability or reliability was central to argumentation for discrediting expert knowledge.

Epistemological dimension: students’ knowledge

The epistemological dimension of the model is discussed now in terms of student knowledge. The analysis of knowledge that students relied on during debates indicated that scientific knowledge and practices and social knowledge were discussed by the students in the debate (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Categorical proportions of students’ knowledge

Full size image

Students’ utterances focused on scientific knowledge and practices, such as CO2 confinement in ice and temperature measurements. They discussed (as presented in the rhetorical processes section) the relevancy of scientists’ income and research funding, science and politics and the relationship between the two, scientists’ research activities, research institutions, nationality, as well as selection of experts, empirical data role, and the necessity of agreement between scientists. Social knowledge was developed within society, or knowledge developed within specific social groups. Natural knowledge was also present in society but not necessarily in a developed form. It then may be information given by the media, truisms, or proverbs.

In the debate, students referred to social knowledge on energy use, environmentalist issues, energy economics, and policies. School science was more rarely integrated in the debate. Students discussed renewable energy issues (wind and water, electric car), costs and profitability, material maintenance (wind turbines, solar devices), limits in production by developing an example of a village electrical supply, impact on landscape for wind turbines and electrical poles. The students’ utterances were mainly focused on environmental considerations with care on future generations. Students also frequently discussed the idea that the environment was a crucial issue, particularly in the French political context. Students also brought to mind the oil ending and the Kyoto protocol, which we categorized as social knowledge:

Renewable energies as you mentioned before the political elections in France last year, well merely a year ago, renewable energies as wind turbines, solar energy [… and] recently we saw that energy can be provided by wind turbines put under water with currents, well every renewable energy and not oil, fossil fuels will come to an end then we will not have any more, then we will need to find a solution and solutions that respect in a way nature. (U96, EG1)

Students’ discussions also focused on economic and political changes that can be consequences of GW. In reference to the IPCC thesis, students stressed that with GW there was urgency to act and to adapt economies to new energy resources and use. This may cause individual behavior changes, new taxes, and a decrease in standard of living:

[…] it cannot be preserved the standard of living of the humble, hum we will not be able to… we cannot guarantee a standard of living as you have today but it is certain

that you will have more constraints to respect the environment. (U98, EG2)

On the opposite end of this discussion was a reference to an alternative IPCC thesis. Students stressed that GW was a way to decrease standard of living, and that this process was done without democratic debate. Relationships between science and politics were once again raised on this occasion as illustrated in the following quotes:

  • Here we are! They want to impose to you some constraints. (U155, E1)

  • Constraints at the material level with wind turbines Mister. (U156, EG)

  • But it is your politicians that give you your money that make them telling that. (U157, E1)

  • But they don’t give us money but… (U158, EG1)

  • But exactly it is a dictatorial system they want… (U159, E1)

  • They want you—they want to settle you–it is exactly that by speaking of ecology and all that—to constraint you to a way of life that maybe you don’t find to be satisfactory and you hum and here we are. (U161, E1)

Discussion of a model for argumentation

In this study, a model of SSI ecology is developed within the framework of design-based research. This model has a double perspective. First, it is interventionist, to design classroom activities. Second, it is analytical, to document our research questions on students’ knowledge and argumentation on GW. Regarding its interventionist perspective, the model is productive in developing a teaching sequence that takes into account the difficulties of communication between students that research has previously established and that is relevant to deal with a controversy in the classroom. The educative aim is to foster students’ communication, argumentative competencies and knowledge, taking into account the high social demand of group discussions, around an SSI, global warming. Students’ communication integrates a non-violent dimension during a simulation debate of a citizens’ conference on GW. A first step is to build a pedagogical sequence is a social and epistemological analysis of the GW controversy within the science studies theorization of Latour (2007). This analysis leads to the elaboration of documents to be used in class by students that includes different “knowledge genres” developed by various social groups. Focusing on the scientific knowledge or expert knowledge of a unique specific group does not allow a documented study of the controversy and does not provide opportunities for students to understand why there is controversy.

Regarding its analytical perspective, the epistemological dimension of the model provided a coding scheme for students’ knowledge according to the “knowledge genres” taken into account in the model. The communication dimension of the model provides coding schemes for students’ communication and argumentation with a focus on rhetorical processes. Knowledge use during the students’ simulation of a citizen conference is categorized as mainly social or natural knowledge and scientific knowledge and practices. Students discuss issues of energy, particularly different forms, interests, and difficulties of renewable energy. Moreover, students’ discourse is explicitly linked to environmental concerns and the concern for future generations. They also debate political and economic changes due to oil-ending, the Kyoto protocol, and consequences of global warming.

Results also show that students’ communication is marked by politeness and deference to scientists and depreciation of citizens’ discourse. Judgments are made on students acting as citizens and experts. Students identify arguments on the GW when confronted with scientific publications or contradictory GW expertise. If science is considered by students as a data collection process done by experimentation that provides evidence, they also question scientific knowledge and its social dimensions. They raise issues with links between science and economics and politics, science and funding, and experts’ political and financial interests. Students’ rhetorical processes are mainly based on the identity of debate protagonists and argument content that rely on empirical data. Students do not develop rhetorical processes based on maxims, insistence, repetition, or duration.

Exploration of socioscientific controversy

These results can be interpreted in regards to the interventionist perspective of the model of SSI ecology. They can be an indication of students’ engagement in the socioscientific issue with using documents to construct arguments. This suggests firstly that the interdisciplinary teaching sequence designed encourages students to engage in the exploration of the socioscientific controversy rather than focusing on procedural aspects of group discussions (Kittleson and Southerland 2004) or developing argumentative strategies and fallacious arguments in order to “win” a controversy (Simonneaux and Albe 2007). Secondly, lliterature on students’ argumentation and decision making on socioscientific issues shows a tendency to compartmentalize scientific knowledge and personal opinions (Sadler 2004), to make claims without adequate justifications, scientific elements or with fallacious arguments (Simonneaux and Albe 2007). Other researchers have indicated difficulties in regulating interactions in group discussions when engaging in debates of socioscientific controversy (Gayford 1992). Naive representations of scientific enterprise have also been identified as obstacles for students’ understanding of a socioscientific issue (Sadler 2004). When assessing claims related to global climate change, students made a dichotomy between scientific knowledge and claims related to global warming and favored judgments (Clayton and Gautier 2006). In this current study, the integration in students’ discussion of a dimension of non-violent communication tends to indicate that students try to regulate their interactions and avoid interpersonal conflicts. These elements lead us to conclude that the goal of the designed sequence to engage students in a non-violent study of GW is achieved successfully.

Regarding our research questions, findings highlight that students’ consideration of science elaboration, science and society co-production, and social and political dimensions of GW are crucial elements in students’ argumentation. This indicates that students are able to argument on considerations of interests involved in science elaboration, and ways science communities operate to establish knowledge when dealing with contemporary socioscientific controversies. Discrediting or weakening assertions can relate to epistemological considerations as they are often associated in students’ discussions to citizens by opposition to experts, who are considered as the only ones knowledgeable on the issue. This (re)opens the question of power relations in citizen conferences and more generally in a democratic society. One student during the debate argues that if decisions are delegated to experts, this would mean that the nature of the political regime is a technocracy. This assertion is followed by laughter and hubbub, and discussions move to on another topic. This exchange may be optimistic by considering that it offers a way to explore in class the questions of power relations, authority, and unbalanced emphasis in the public and media sphere to different groups that defend different interests and values.

During the last session we explore with students the role of citizens regarding scientific and political issues from the analysis of global warming as our case study. This corresponds to an aim of educating to social and political action with the analysis of socioscientific controversies. More research is needed to explore democratic participation in schools (Levinson 2010).

Summary thoughts

In this study, an empirical study on 12th-grade students’ communication, argumentation, and knowledge in an interdisciplinary activity on GW, uses a classroom debate structure in the form of a citizens’ conference. Students’ communication, argumentation and knowledge are identified by a multiple-level analysis grounded in a model of socioscientific controversies ecology elaborated as a theoretical tentative coupled to an initial teaching sequence developed in the framework of design-based research.

This research suggests that specific classroom interventions on socioscientific issues could allow argumentation practices in a classroom and be fruitful to encourage students to participate as citizens in decisions on socioscientific issues. This highlights, as in other research on SSI, that properly designed curriculum can improve students understanding and argumentation (Lewis and Leach 2006). More research effort that focus on socioscientific issues curriculum integration and design are encouraged. The framework of design-based research appears to be fruitful in this perspective as its double aspect, interventionist and analytical, may provide a greater understanding of the activities designed and their outcomes regarding students learning and their adaptation to new contexts.