![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
The present study analyzes decision‐making and argumentation by high school students in a debate situation on a socioscientific issue, the use of embryonic stem cells in research and therapy. We tested the influence on the debates of two different contexts. Adolescent students at the high school level in the same grade (mean age 16.4 years) from rural and urban zones of Provence, France, participated in three debate sessions. During the first session, the students listed the background questions they wanted to ask the expert(s). They were also required to identify one or two major issues that would serve as an outline for the future debate. They then discussed these with the expert(s) during the second session and took note of the answers. During this session, the control groups met with a neuroscientist whereas the experimental ‘contextualized’ group met with the same neuroscientist together with a representative of an association of patients suffering from a neurodegenerative disease. Analysis of the students’ arguments and decision‐making revealed that contextualization introduced dynamism in the students’ exchanges: they paid more attention to their peers’ arguments and were more motivated to argue their own opinion. However, this type of contextualization may contribute to reinforcing ideology in scientific progress.
Acknowledgment
Grégoire Molinatti thanks Claude Caussidier for invaluable help.
Notes
1. In French context, whereas the éducations à (education to health, human reproduction, environment) existed in sciences curricula since 1970s, science and society interlinks were introduced per se during the last reform 2000–01. In this context, the field of research dealing with SSI is called ‘didactique des questions socialement vives’ and analyses the teaching of ‘socially “acute” questions’ (Legardez & Alpe, Citation2001; Simonneaux & Simonneaux, Citation2004).
2. In 2004, during the bioethics law revision, the French government declared a moratorium concerning hESC research. Starting in 2006, research was allowed for a five‐year period on stem cells of supernumerary embryos from in vitro fertilization or on imported hESC lines (see http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/dossiers/bioethique.asp).
3. Without developing media coverage of hESC uses, let us specify that national generalist newspapers (Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération) and specialized press (La Recherche, Pour la science) dealt with this issue once a month since the 1990s. According to the political or legislative agenda, media coverage can increase (bioethics laws revision, popular consultation as 2005 Italian referendum). Scientific papers are also relayed by the media as the well‐known example of first reported nuclear transfer in humans by south Korean researcher W. S. Hwang (Hwang et al., Citation2004, Citation2005; see also Jiménez‐Aleixandre & Federico‐Agraso, Citation2009).
4. The science teachers of the class decided the group assignments on the bases of students’ facilities to express themselves in task group.
5. Kelly postulated four positions which teachers might adopt: exclusive neutrality (teacher should not broach controversial themes, according to a positivistic approach, surrounding, that scientific discoveries are value‐free truths), exclusive partiality (characterized by the deliberate intention to bring students to adopt a specific point of view), neutral impartiality (characterized by the unrealistic point of view sustaining that the moderator should remain neutral and not reveal his own beliefs), and committed impartiality (the moderator, if asked to do so, tells his position on the subject of debate).
6. Logical modalizations consist in truth value judgment of formulated opinions (considered as certain, possible, uncertain, probable). Deontic modalizations consist in formulated opinion appreciation considering social values (socially allowable, unsuitable, necessary, advisable). Appreciative modalizations are the expression of a more subjective judgment (facts are considered as felicitous, unfortunate, strange). Lastly, pragmatic modalizations refer to someone’s responsibility (will, objective, abilities, reasons).