Abstract
The objectives discussed in this paper were to test research methods used to analyse student debates, to report on them, and to compare students’ arguments in role-playing and debating situations on the topic of animal transgenesis. Analyses were made from different perspectives, from microscopic analysis of debate episodes to macroscopic analysis of discussion dynamics, thus in turn identifying episodes for more detailed close-up study. During a formal debate, as opposed to role-playing, students speak for longer periods and develop more complex arguments based on valid data. When role-playing, moreover students used more ironical and provocative rhetorical techniques.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adam, J., M., (1992). Les textes: types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan — Université.
Blanché, R., (1967). Introduction à la logique contemporaine. Paris:PUF.
Brassart, D., G., (1987). Le développement des capacités discursives chez l’enfant de 8 à 12 ans: le discours argumentatif (étude didactique). Thèse pour le Doctorat de Sciences Humaines. Strasbourg.
Breton, P., (1996). L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: Ed. La Découverte.
Bronckart, J.-P., (1996). Activité langagière, textes et discours. Pour un interactionisme socio-discursif. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé.
Diaz de Bustamante, J. & Jiménez Aleixandre, M., P., (2000). Communication in the laboratory sessions and sequences of arguments. Paper presented in the 3rd ERIDOB Conference, September 2000, Santiago de Compostella.
Driver, R. & Newton, P., (1997). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Paper presented in the ESERA Conference, 2–6 September 1997, Rome.
Dumas Carré, A. & Weil-Barais, A., (2000). Analyse du travail de jeunes élèves au cours d’activités scientifiques; dynamique des échanges et conceptualisations des élèves. Paper presented in Journées d’étude franco-quebecoises — Didactique des disciplines: Recherches sur les pratiques effectives, 5–6 October, 2000, Toulouse.
Duschl, R. A. & Ellenbogen, K., (1999). Middle school science students’ dialogic argumentation. Paper presented in the ESERA Conference, Kiel.
Geddis, A., (1991). Understanding Scientific Reasoning. (3rd ed.) Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Golder, C., (1996). Le développement des discours argumentatifs. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., Pereiro Munoz, C. & Aznar Cuadrado, V., (2000a). Promoting reasoning and argument about environmental issues, Research in Didaktik of Biology (pp. 215–230). Göteborg: IPD.
Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodriguez, A., Duschl, R. A., (2000b). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in High School Genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S. & Chen, C., (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871.
Mortimer, E. F. & Machado, A. H., (1999). Mediational tools and discourse interactions in science classrooms. Paper presented in the ESERA Conference, Kiel.
Osborne, J., (1999). Promoting rhetoric and argument in the science classroom. Paper presented in the ESERA Conference, Kiel.
Pontecorvo, C. & Girardet, H., (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11 (3&4), 365–395.
Ratcliffe, M., (1996). Adolescent decision-making, by individual and groups, about science-related societal issues. In: Welford G., Osborne, J., Scott, P., (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: current issues and themes. London: Falmer.
Resnick, L.B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C.M., Wathen, S.H. & Holowchak, N. (1993) Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11 (3&4), 347–364.
Simonneaux, L., (1997) Sumotoris in Unit 11 Transgenic animals. On http://www.eibe.org
Simonneaux, L., (2000). Comparison of the impact of a role playing and of a classical discussion on students’ argumentation concerning an issue in animal transgenesis. Paper presented in the 3rd ERIDOB Conference, September 2000, Santiago de Compostella.
Solomon, J., (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14 (4), 431–444.
Sonora Luna, F., Garcia-Rodeja Gayoso, I. & Branas Pérez, M., P., (2000). Discourse analysis: pupils’ discussions of soil science. Paper presented in the 3rd ERIDOB Conference, September 2000, Santiago de Compostella.
Toulmin, S., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simonneaux, L. (2003). Different Types of Classroom Debates on Biotechnology. Are These Simply an Exercise in Rhetoric or do they Encourage a Well — Founded Critical Attitude ?. In: Psillos, D., Kariotoglou, P., Tselfes, V., Hatzikraniotis, E., Fassoulopoulos, G., Kallery, M. (eds) Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5_31
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6337-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0165-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive