Which side are you on? The role of attitudes in reasoning practices in student-group interactions regarding a socio-scientific issue related to climate change

Figures & data

Table 1. Activities completed during three lessons and their duration.

Lesson	Activity	Time (minutes)	Organisation
1	Introduction to group task	45	Whole class
	Teacher divides students into 10 groups of 3 and assigns representations: 4 groups play role of government, 4 represent NGOs and 2 act as lawyers		Group work
	Groups construct arguments or critical questions		Group work
2	2 groups representing the same side merge and present their arguments to each other. The lawyer-groups does not merge.	45	Group work
	Students prepare final arguments or critical questions for court		Group work
3	Court session during which groups present arguments and lawyer groups asked presenting groups critical questions	90	Whole class
	Judges decides which side wins		Whole class
	Summary		Whole class

Figure 1. Four representations the groups received during the group task.

Table 2. Gathered video-data of group interactions and number of participants in each group.

Type of data	Participants (number of students)
Video-data group interactions	Lesson 1:	Lesson 2:
	1 NGO-groups (3), 1 Government-group (3) Lawyer-Group NGO (3) Lawyer-group Government (3)	1 NGO group (6) 1 Government group (6) Lawyer-group NGO (3) Lawyer-group Government (3)

Table 3. Realisations of types of affect, judgment and appreciation from the literature and the current study.

Attitude (Martin & White, 2005)			Example of words (Martin & White, 2005)	Example of Norwegian translation (Marti, 2021)	In this study
Affect	Unhappiness		Misery: sad, down Antipathy: dislike, hate	Elendighet: trist, nedfor Antipati: mislike, hate	When students express feeling sad/happy or indicate they like/dislike someone/something
	Happiness		Cheer: laugh, cheerful Affection: love, be fond of	Begeistring: le, glad Hengivenhet: elske, like
	Insecurity		Disquiet: restless, anxious Surprise: cry out, jolted	Uro: rastløs, engstelig Overaske: skrike, skvette	When students express feeling secure/insecure about something/someone
	Security		Confidence: proclaim, confident Trust: trusting, confident in/about	Sikkerhet: erklære, trygg Tillit: stole på, sikker på
	Dissatisfaction		Ennui: tuned out, yawn Displeasure: caution, bored with	Kjedsomhet: koble ut, gjespe Misnøye: mistenksom, lei av	When students express feeling bored/interested or satisfied/dissatisfied with someone/something
	Satisfaction		Interest: involved, absorbed Pleasure: compliment, impressed	Interesse: involvert, oppslukt Nytelse: komplimentere, imponert
Judgment	Social esteem	Normality	Positive: lucky, predictable Negative: unlucky, odd	Positive: heldig, kjent Negative: uheldig, rar	When students judge how normal/special an utterance/person/political party/government is and/or its actions are
		Capacity	Positive: powerful, clever Negative: weak, helpless	Positive: mektig, smart Negative: svak, hjelpeløs	When students judge capacity of person/political party/government and/or its actions
		Tenacity	Positive: heroic, reliable Negative: cowardly, unreliable	Positive: heroisk, pålitelig Negative: feig, upålitelig	When students judge the reliability of utterance/person/political party/government and/or its actions
	Social sanction	Veracity	Positive: truthful, credible Negative: dishonest, lying	Positive: troverdig, sann Negative: usann, uærlig	When students judge trustworthiness of utterance/person/political party/government and/or its actions
		Propriety	Positive: moral, fair Negative: immoral, unfair	Positive: moralsk, rettferdig Negative: umoralsk, urettferdig	When students judge decency of utterance/person/political party/government and/or its actions
Appreciation	Reaction	Impact	Positive: sensational, engaging Negative: boring, predictable	Positive: gripende, engasjerende Negative: kjedelig, forutsigbart	When students appreciate impact of phenomena/ objects/etc., such as oil drilling or an argument, including how it will impact them or others
		Quality	Positive: okay, good Negative: bad, ugly	Positive: ok, fint, Negative: dårlig, stygt	When students appreciate quality of phenomenon/ object/etc. and whether they like it
	Composition	Balance	Positive: balanced, harmonious Negative: unbalanced, contradictory	Positive: balansert, harmonisk Negativ: ubalansert, motstridende	When students appreciate balance of phenomenon/ object/etc.
		Complexity	Positive: simply, clear, precise Negative: unclear, simplistic	Positive: klart, detaljert Negative: uklart, forenklet	When students appreciate complexity of phenomenon/object/etc.
	Valuation		Positive: valuable, appropriate Negative: worthless, useless	Positive: verdifullt, passende Negative: verdiløst, ubrukelig	When students appreciate dis/advantages and value of phenomenon/object/etc.

Table 4. Excerpt 1.

Speaker		Utterance	Attitude	Appraised
1	Endre:	Which side are you on? The Conservative party or the Labour party?
2	Mette:	Obviously (.) I only like the Conservative party	+ Affect: security + Affect: happiness	The Conservative party
3	Endre:	Yes (.) Okay (.) Good (.) We are the Conservative party. ((turns to Anders)) You also like the right side (.) right?	+ Affect: satisfaction + Judgment: normality	Mette’s utterance The opinion of liking the Conservative party
4	Anders:	Right, what?
5	Endre:	The Conservative party
6	Anders:	Yes.	+ Affect: happiness	The Conservative party
7	Endre:	They ((pointing at another group)) are the Labour party (.) That’s-
8	Anders:	((makes vomiting sounds))	− Affect: unhappiness	The Labour party
9	Endre:	However (.) The Labour party are just as much in fauvor of oil drilling [No one responds, and the group goes on to discuss the representations.]

Table 5. Excerpt 2.

Speaker		Utterance	Attitude	Appraised
1	Henrik:	Yes okay (.) Argument (.) It helps- or it’s necessary to restrain the Norwegian welfare state	+ Appreciation: valuation	Oil drilling
2	Endre:	Yes
3	Henrik:	There are very many jobs within the oil and gas [industry]	+ Appreciation: valuation	Employment in oil
4	Endre:	Yes, employment (.) Write employment. ((addresses Anders, who types on the computer))	+ Appreciation: reaction (quality) + Affect: satisfaction	Henrik’s utterance
5	Henrik:	Yes (.) Employment (.) Good	+ Appreciation: reaction (quality)	Endre’s utterance
6	Endre:	We must use technical language
7	Henrik:	Also, that it covers most of the world’s energy needs	+ Appreciation: valuation	Oil drilling
8	Endre:	Fifty-seven percent
9	Henrik:	Yes, so if we quit it [oil drilling], it’s like going back to the old days
10	Mette:	That’s the issue (.) What shall we do with everyone who becomes unemployed?	– Judgment: capacity	To stop further oil exploration
11	Endre:	Yes (.) They have to go to NAV [the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration], but there isn’t enough money from oil- oil money anymore	– Judgment: capacity	To stop further oil exploration
12	Mette:	That’s true	+ Judgment: veracity	Endre’s utterance
13	Endre:	Aha, also we can- Do you know (.) Something else we can use is fishing (.) But then we overfish (.) And that’s not sustainable (.) So-	– Judgment: propriety	To replace oil drilling with fishing
14	Mette:	That’s true	+ Judgment: veracity	Endre’s utterance
15	Endre:	So, the way Norway makes money- it does not work if the Green Party get it the way they want it	– Judgment: capacity – Affect: dissatisfaction	The Green Party
16	Mette:	If they [the Green party] win- Or if they get it the way they want (.) Then Norway goes straight to hell	– Judgment: capacity – Affect: dissatisfaction	The Green Party
17	Endre:	They do not- They do not [win] (.) They are barely a party that can be represented in the Storting [parliament], they have <so> few voters (.) The Conservative party is largest woohoo (.) The Labour party only goes down and down (10) They would like us to share the goods and all that (.) But what is- Is that it will be unfair sharing (.) you know- you are guaranteed to have heard of adult people who are at home and don´t have jobs (.) and they get money from NAV (.) every month (.) every month (.) right?	– Judgment: capacity + Judgment: capacity + Affect: happiness – Judgment: capacity – Judgment: propriety	The Green Party The Conservative party The Labour party The Labour party
18	Mette:	Yes
19	Endre:	Then it is your parent’s money (.) and my parent’s money they receive (.) Do you think that’s like fair?	–Appreciation: reaction (impact) – Judgment: propriety	The Labour party
20	Mette:	No (.) I mean-
21	Endre:	And they are many (.) right?
22	Mette:	It´s my money, too (.) I pay taxes [The group goes on to discuss whether and why Mette pays taxes.]	–Appreciation: reaction (impact)	The Labour party

Table 6. Excerpt 3.

Speaker		Utterance	Attitude	Appraised
1	Selma:	Okay (.) but personally (.) are you in favour or against [oil exploration]?
2	Klara:	Against! ((simultaneously writes arguments in favour of oil drilling on her computer))	− Affect: unhappiness	Oil exploration
3	Jørn:	I don´t know (.) I don´t care	− Affect: dissatisfaction	Oil exploration
4	Selma:	I´m a bit of both	− Affect: insecure	Oil exploration
5	Klara:	((stops typing on the computer)) But I do understand why it is difficult to do that- [take a stand on oil exploration]	− Appreciation: composition (complexity)	Oil exploration
6	Selma:	Like (.) the Norwegian welfare is based on it	+ Appreciation: valuation	Oil exploration
7	Klara:	Yes so that’s the problem (.) but at the same time (.) we know very well that- we- if- especially how long we continue [to drill for oil] it especially affects our generation because it goes so fast (.) that´s what it is- that´s why I am more against (.) Because we have to fix so damn much now [No one responds, and Klara continues to type arguments in favour of further oil drilling on her computer.]	− Appreciation: composition (complexity) − Appreciation: reaction (impact) − Affect: insecurity	Oil exploration

Figure 2. Statistics Norway representation ‘Employed persons by main group of industry’, containing numbers of employees in various industries, including petroleum industry, with the fewest employees.

Table 7. Excerpt 4.

Speaker		Utterance	Attitude	Appraised
1	Selma:	I don´t know if this (refers to the representation [Figure 2]) is any good for us	− Appreciation: reaction (quality)	Representation ‘employed persons by main group of industry’ (Figure 2)
2	Klara:	Do you mean the one with employment? Because there are far too few who are employed there [petroleum industry] ((giggling))	− Appreciation: valuation + Affect: happiness	Representation ‘employed persons by main group of industry’ (Figure 2)
3	Selma:	Yes (.) It´s not good (.) Uhm (.) But what if they say <Yes but it´s just because it´s within a short period of time so> – ((sarcastically))	− Appreciation: reaction (quality) − Appreciation: composition (complexity)	Representation ‘employed persons by main group of industry’ (Figure 2)
4	Klara:	I know (.) It can be difficult to- We must have something to back it up with (.) Uhm	− Appreciation: composition (complexity)	Constructing arguments supporting further oil exploration
5	Jørn:	Show us with-
6	Selma:	We can´t say that <yes but we live in the present> because then it´s like that <no it is not sustainable> ((sarcastically))	− Appreciation: reaction (quality) − Judgment: propriety	The argument ‘to live in the present’
7	Klara:	We can also say because- We can also use arguments like- Uhm (.) <There have always been climate changes> ((sarcastically)) and (.) uhm (.) but then they can say <but it has happened over a longer period of time> and then we have to come up with something else (.) Uhm	− Appreciation: reaction (quality)	The argument ‘it has always been climate change’
8	Jørn:	<Life is hard without a moustache> ((jokingly)) We can just say that and then we are done with it	− Affect: insecurity	The ongoing discussion
9	Klara:	We cannot just say we are done because the meaning of it is that we must be able to answer it	− Appreciation: valuation	Jørn’s utterance
10	Selma:	Then we have lost [the case]	− Appreciation: valuation	Jørn’s utterance
11	Klara:	Yes (.) Then we have proved at once that we have lost (.) So we must manage to answer it (.) We almost must- Maybe the best for- Uhm (.) The argument itself is that about the Paris Agreement thing- it- Uhm (.) We have promised to not emit more but not to not extract (.) And even that with employments- We open for much more workplaces and things like that (.) Uhm (.) At the same time- Uhm	− Appreciation: valuation + Appreciation: reaction (quality) + Judgment: propriety + Appreciation: valuation	Jørn’s utterance Argument related to the Paris Agreement and employment Oil exploration Oil exploration
12	Selma:	No (.) just say that oil- No (.) Norway profits from oil	+ Appreciation: valuation	Oil exploration
13	Klara:	Yes (.) and we profit from it for future generations (.) We cannot just deny it (.) Because then we just lose many workplaces for other descendants and that- And this is money which must be preserved to- uhm (.) next generation [No one responds, and the group starts discussing which of them will speak during the trial.]	+ Appreciation: valuation − Appreciation: reaction (impact)	Oil exploration

Table 8. Summary of analysis.

Excerpt	Appraisal pattern	Discourse pattern
1 (lawyer group)	Affect: security, like (the Conservative party), dislike (Labour party)	Two opposing positions – the group adopts one of them as theirs
2 (lawyer group)	Oil exploration positively valued (appreciation), negative judgments of shutting down and Green Party	The selected position is developed through appreciation and negative implications that follow from stopping oil exploration
3 (gov. group)	Lack of satisfaction, insecurity expressed (affect), and complexity appreciated	Questioning, inquiry and multiple perspectives
4 (gov. group)	Appreciation (quality and complexity) of representations and their role in argumentation before phenomena addressed	Adds new layer of complexity to discourse by appreciating the quality of the representation and the argument developed

Figure 3. Displayed attitudes in lawyer group and their relation to aspect of SSR without students’ leaving a polarised framing.

Figure 4. Displayed attitudes in government group and their relation to aspect of SSR, where students move from complexity to perspective-taking and demonstrate scepticism; the discourse can be categorised as inquiry.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

 Google Scholar

Marti, K. T. (2021). Bærekraft i skolens tekstkulturer - En studie av skriveoppdrag og elevtekster (Sustainability in school text cultures – A study of writing assignments and student texts). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo, Oslo]. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-93379.

 Google Scholar