Content uploaded by Pablo Brocos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pablo Brocos on Sep 27, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Processes of negotiation in socio-scientific argumentation about
vegetarianism in teacher education
María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre and Pablo Brocos
This chapter discusses argumentative interactions about a socio-scientific issue with a
focus on the processes of negotiation involved in building a shared argument in a
decision-making context. Argumentative interactions can be seen as processes involving
negotiations (Baker, 2002; 2009). This study examines how pre-service teachers (N=74;
20 small groups) negotiate a range of contents (negotia), such as task goals, strategies
for carrying on the task, meanings, choices, and justifications for them. The context is a
debate about diets, vegetarian versus omnivorous, a question involving dimensions such
as nutritional, ecological (both of them scientific), ethical, socio-economic, or cultural.
The research objective is to examine the processes of negotiation about the choice or
option to be agreed by the group (vegetarian, vegan, omnivorous), and about the
evidence and justification to be employed to support the option, expressed in these
research questions: 1) Which dimensions have greater weight in the negotiation
processes and in the final decision? 2) Which patterns, in terms of strategies and
negotiation levels, reveal the negotiation paths in four small groups? A detailed analysis
of the negotiation in one group illustrates how it proceeds from opposed alternatives
and initial rejections, through a series of offers and acceptances, involving actors in an
appropriation of dialogical contributions from others, which finally made possible
reaching a consensus through mutual concessions. The influence of the features of the
task and its multidisciplinary dimensions, in particular cultural values, is discussed.
Introduction: Two Perspectives on Studying Argumentation in Science Education
Argumentation studies have been a successful line of research in science education
since its first steps at the end of the 1990s. In the first decade of the 21st century
argumentation has dominated the field of science education, with a higher number of
papers in indexed journals, including some of the most cited ones, than any other line.
We interpret that there are two theoretical perspectives informing argumentation studies
in science education, approaches that are complementary rather than alternative,
meaning a stronger emphasis on one or the other. Most studies frame argumentation in
epistemic practices and in scientific practices. The similarities and distinctions between
epistemic and scientific practices fall beyond the scope of this chapter, being discussed
elsewhere (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Crujeiras, 2016). An influential characterization of
epistemic practices is Kelly’s (2008) as "the specific ways members of a community
propose, justify, evaluate, and legitimize knowledge claims within a disciplinary
framework" (Kelly, p. 99). We may say that epistemic practices have the purpose of
generating knowledge. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Crujeiras (2016) suggest that scientific
practices are epistemic practices in the context of specific learning contexts or content
areas. Students’ engagement in scientific practices is the focus of recent policy
documents as the U.S. New Generation Science Standards, NGSS (Achieve, 2013).
Within this frame, argumentation is viewed as the practice of evaluating knowledge in
the light of evidence (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008; 2015).
A second theoretical approach is identified in the work of French argumentation
scholars, characterized by a stronger cooperation among different fields, not only
science education, but also epistemology and in particular language sciences, as
illustrated for instance in Buty and Plantin (2008) edited volume, with one of the
!
2!
editors, Christian Plantin, belonging to the language sciences field. There is a robust
tradition of argumentation studies by French language scientists, from which science
educators draw. This is for instance the case with Oswald Ducrot, which focuses on the
role of language in argumentation, and with the Swiss Piagetian scholar Jean-Blaise
Grize, concerned with natural logic and the cognitive processes in argumentation. Buty
and Plantin do not regard as argumentative all tasks or activities involving discursive
interactions, but only those involving, for instance, formulating claims, supporting them
or evaluating arguments. Similarly they consider argumentation in science education
contexts not just a linguistic activity. Even with these caveats, the collaboration among
different fields shows potential for advancing the examination of scientific
argumentation. In this chapter we draw on these two approaches, seeking to incorporate
perspectives from language and cognitive science to science education.
Our focus on negotiation processes makes part of a study addressing non-
structural dimensions of argumentation, in other words going beyond the analysis of
argumentative components such as claims, evidence and justifications (Jiménez-
Aleixandre & Erduran, 2015; Toulmin, 1958). The full study examines other
dimensions such as emotive resources (Plantin, 2011), metaknowledge and negotiation,
which is the focus of this chapter.
Negotiation in argumentative interactions in the context of science education has
been examined by Baker (1994; 2009), through several instruments for analysing it, but
still is an understudied issue. Our purpose is to contribute to this line of research by
examining negotiation processes in argumentation about a socio-scientific issue. Socio-
scientific issues are multidisciplinary by nature, involving not only scientific domains,
but also others as ethical, social or personal.
This study examines how pre-service teachers weave a range of dimensions in
their arguments about vegetarian diets, and in doing so negotiate different types of
contents or negotia. The dimensions include nutritional, ecological (both scientific),
ethical, socio-economic, and cultural. The analysis of their written and oral arguments
explores the processes of negotiation within small groups, the range of dimensions
addressed and the evidence and justification to be employed to support the options, in
particular:
1) Which dimensions have greater weight in the negotiation process and in the
final decision?
2) Which patterns, in terms of strategies and negotiation levels, reveal the
negotiation paths in four small groups?
The next two sections discuss the rationale of the study, with an emphasis on
argumentation about socio-scientific issues (SSI) and on argumentative interactions, and
the methodology. Then the results related to the two research questions are presented,
leading to the conclusions and implications drawn from the study.
Rationale: Argumentative Interactions as Negotiation Processes
Argumentation
Argumentation is considered, in the field of science education, as a scientific practice
with the goal of evaluating knowledge in the light of evidence. According to Osborne
(2014) “explaining how we know what we know or why we believe what we do” (p.
580) will contribute to a commitment to evidence as the epistemic basis of beliefs. This
is a perspective that emphasizes justification and rationality.
There is agreement that the study of argumentation should combine attention to
justification and to persuasion, but the second currently is an understudied dimension of
argumentation (Berland & Reiser, 2011). However, argumentation is always a social
!
3!
process (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008), being necessary to take into account the
audience, and the effects of the arguments on it. Two seminal books, published on the
same year by Toulmin (1958) and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958), may
exemplify these two sides of argumentation. Toulmin places the validity of an argument
in the coherence of its support in evidence and justifications. Perelman and Olbrechts-
Tyteca emphasize argumentation as discursive techniques, distinguishing between
persuasive and convincing argumentation. They understand persuasive argumentation as
addressed to particular audiences, while convincing argumentation would be universal.
Both meanings, justification and persuasion, are combined in van Eemeren &
Grootendorst’s definition: “Argumentation is a verbal, social and rational activity aimed
at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward
a constellation of propositions justifying or refuting the proposition expressed in the
standpoint” (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 1). They further characterize
argumentation as the process of convincing an audience.
It needs to be noted that our focus in this study is not an argument by a speaker
that would persuade (or not) an audience, but mutual persuasion by participants in a
task. In such situations, participants are involved in learning through the social
construction of knowledge (Perret-Clermont, 1979).
Argumentation about socio-scientific issues (SSI) or, as they are characterized in
the French tradition, socially acute questions (SAQs), deals with complex issues,
demanding consideration of different dimensions. As Morin et al. (2014) point out,
these open-ended issues bring out the complexities and uncertainties embedded in ill-
structured problems, reflecting social representations and value systems. In SSI the
persuasion of potential audiences towards attitudes that would be, for instance, more
environmentally sound is a relevant issue. Through the SSI framework students engage
with open-ended controversial issues within multi-disciplinary perspectives (Zeidler et
al. 2005). The quality of decision-making in SSI has been related to many overlapping
skills, such as argumentation, informal reasoning, the understanding of the nature of
science (NOS), and conceptual knowledge (Sadler, 2004).
One feature of argumentation in SSI is the existence of one or more acceptable
options. This diverges from strictly scientific issues, which in most cases have one
accepted solution, for instance a causal explanation, although there could be potential
alternatives. The existence of a diversity of proposals, options or solutions is a condition
for argumentation (Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008). Furthermore Baker (2002) points out
that the proposals should have different epistemic statuses from the point of view of
participants, as for instance more or less plausible, true, believable or acceptable. These
epistemic statuses may be modified as an outcome of argumentation.
An issue that has not been examined in previous studies is the relevance of
different discursive contexts in the practice of argumentation. Jiménez-Aleixandre et al.
(2014) argue that some argumentative operations and products may differ in contexts
specific to pedagogical discursive practices. They identify four discursive contexts for
argumentation: 1) construction and evaluation of causal explanations; 2) decision-
making on the basis of evidence; 3) primary data interpretation and drawing of claims in
laboratory experiences; and 4) critical evaluation of claims made by others. From these,
this study corresponds to the second, decision-making.
Negotiation Processes
Argumentative interactions may be contemplated as processes involving negotiations
(Baker 2002; 2009), and the social construction of knowledge. Baker characterizes
argumentative interactions as “attempts to decide on alternative solutions by
!
4!
transforming attitudes towards them” (Baker, 2009, p. 133), which is related to the
differences in epistemic statuses discussed above.
Baker (1994) proposes a model for negotiation in teaching and learning contexts
that informs this study. In it negotiation is characterized as the process of reaching an
agreement with respect to something by means of communicative interactions. It is a
complex and interactive mechanism in order to pursue common goals and achieve
mutual understanding. Baker distinguishes four features in negotiation: negotia
(discussed below), initial and final state, and negotiation processes which lead from the
initial to the final state. He also proposes four conditions for a process to be categorized
as negotiation: (1) presence of two or more participants or negotiators; (2) negotiators
should believe themselves to be relatively equals in terms of rights to make proposals
and use similar means to reach an agreement; (3) initial cooperative goal of reaching an
agreement of some kind; (4) transition from the an initial state (goals, beliefs, conflicts)
to a final state. The initial goal can be established in three ways: being assumed,
imposed (e.g. by the teacher) or negotiated. The final state reflects what it is agreed
with respect to some negotia.
Negotia are the things to be agreed upon, and can be defined on two levels:
domain-task, and communicative. The domain-task level, which is the main focus of our
analysis, includes conative negotia (e.g. purpose of a task, orientation), epistemic
negotia (e.g. meaning of specific notions), and problem-oriented negotia (e.g. task
solutions or strategies to be carried out). The communicative level involves aspects
related to the interaction management and the verification of mutual understanding.
The transition from the initial to the final state comprises several negotiation
processes (strategies or actions), which, according to Baker, essentially involve offers or
proposals by one participant, and acceptance or rejection of them by another. When one
participant makes an offer, the others can accept or reject it. If they reject it, the
proposing participant may try to use persuasion or argumentation to convince them to
accept it or simply accept their rejection. If the receiving agents can’t find any reason to
reject the offer they can also encourage the proposing negotiator to further develop his
offer (stand pat, in Baker`s terms). If the receiving agents accept the offer, totally or
partially, they may think of some way of transforming it into a new one (counteroffer)
that satisfies their own constraints and the constraints they attribute to the rest of the
negotiators. This refining strategy may require several steps of offers and counteroffers
through a convergent path of mutual concessions until agreement is reached and usually
explicitly checked.
It is noteworthy that when we talk about agreement we are not referring to the
accordance of mutual beliefs. We share Baker’s (1994, p. 208) notion that in these
negotiation contexts, agreement is related to the “willingness to accept the current
proposal for the present purposes, as far as it goes” (author’s emphasis). This draws
from Cohen’s (1992) distinction between acceptance (willingness to take something
into account in one’s reasoning), and belief (disposition to feel). One can decide to
accept something but not genuinely decide to believe in it. Acceptance of a proposition
is highly dependent upon the participants’ believes, but many other contextual factors
may be involved.
Thus we seek to bring together these two research bodies in the examination of
how arguments about diet are negotiated in small groups.
Research Methodology
The methods are qualitative, in an approach oriented to analyze educational cases
through expressions and actions in their local contexts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2012), by
!
5!
interpretations that seek to stay close to the meanings given by participants to events
and utterances. One assumption framing this approach is that we are examining socially
constructed knowledge claims, participants’ subjective meanings of their experiences
(Creswell, 2009).
Participants, educational context and data collection
74 pre-service primary teachers, enrolled in the science education course taught by the
second author, participated in the study. They were involved in tasks about evidence
evaluation, criteria for strong arguments and balanced diets; they sought information
about dimensions (ecological, ethical, nutritional, economical or cultural) of diets,
shared these through a wiki, and constructed arguments in small groups (N=20)
distributed in four seminar sessions lasting 90 minutes. Data collection included
students’ written products (individual pre-test, portfolios, final essays; group
arguments) and video recording of small groups from which all participants agreed to it.
In this chapter the analysis focuses on the written arguments of the 20 small groups and
the oral debates of four groups, one from each seminar session, in which all participants
agreed to be recorded. Participants are identified with pseudonyms, beginning with the
letter of their group, A to D. Ours is a bilingual context, where both co-official
languages, Galician and Spanish, are used interchangeably and fully understood by the
actors. The texts and debates have been translated to English.
The task: constructing arguments about diets
The focus is on the last task from an instructional sequence about argumentation.
Participants were asked to construct an argument about which diet would be better. The
handout is reproduced in Annex 1. In order to build that argument they were directed to
use a complex data set, consisting from their own selection of information, collected in
a wiki, as well as five additional handouts elaborated by the researchers, one for each
dimension (cultural, ecological, economical, ethical and nutritional). These additional
handouts were produced to ensure that for each dimension there was available
information supporting different choices. For instance the information about nutrition
included numerical data and excerpts from reports stating that well planned vegetarian
diets are nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits, as well as from other
authors criticizing vegan diets. Similarly the information about ecology included
comparisons about energy efficiency of vegetal and animal food, about the amount of
land required for feeding people with vegetal versus animal diet (15/1); or the
contribution of breeding to greenhouse gases. The data set about economy consisted of
numerical data about Galician economy, showing the dominance of animal breeding
(66.6%) over agriculture (28.7%) in the agro-breed complex, which is the reverse of the
distribution in Spain (34% versus 62%) or in the European Union. Ethical and cultural
pieces of information included excerpts from essays, in the case of the cultural
dimension, focusing in Galicia. The contextualized features of the task are discussed in
another paper (Brocos & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2016a).
Thus, conflict was embedded in the task design. The purpose was to provide
students with pieces of information that could be used to support conflicting options, for
instance most (although not all) data related to nutrition and ecology would support
vegetarian over meat diet, as was the case with the ethical essays. On the other hand, the
data related to Galician economy and Galician food culture would point to some
problems involved in mass dietary changes.
Data Analysis
!
6!
Data examination draws from discourse analysis (Gee, 2005), and uses the constant
comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Coding categories emerged from the
interaction of dimensions from the literature with data in successive iterations.
Transcriptions of the oral debates and written reports were analysed by both authors,
initial repertoires of categories drawing from the literature were elaborated and tentative
codes were independently assigned to each unit. Then the codes were compared, the
differences resolved, and the categories refined. Using these revised categories, data
were subjected to several cycles of analysis. The analysis of the types of negotia, and
the forms of negotiation, such as offer, acceptance or rejection, in small groups draws
from Baker’s (1994) model.
Questions Negotiated, Weight of Evidence and Cultural Values
This section examines the results related to the first research question (although both
questions are intertwined): Which dimensions have greater weight in the negotiation
process and in the final decision?
The purpose is to examine how the participants weighted the five dimensions of
the issue, how each of these dimensions contributed to consecutive steps in the
negotiation process and to the final decision. It may be noted that two of these
dimensions, nutritional and ecological, can be considered as belonging to the scientific
domain, and less value-laden, and even the economical dimension consisted mainly of
numerical data. The remaining two, ethical and cultural dimensions, are related to value
systems. As discussed in the methods section, conflict was embedded in the task, so the
participants needed to decide (implicit or explicitly) which dimensions had the greater
weight in their decisions. In order to better understand the context, before discussing the
analysis of the interactions in small groups in the next section, we present an overview
of the written reports in the 20 groups and the debates in the four small groups.
The student teachers were asked to reach a consensus on which diet would be
better. Although the initial options were omnivorous (in other words, including meat,
which they sometimes termed “mixed”) and vegetarian, the handout stated that there
could be intermediate options (see Annex 1). It was also recommended to draw from as
many dimensions as possible.
First it should be noted the diversification of choices: 10 groups proposed
omnivorous diet with reduced meat amounts (compared with regular diet), seven
omnivorous, two vegetarian and one vegan diet. The ten proposals for reducing meat
amounts may be interpreted as participants’ attempts to take into account conflicting
information from the different dimensions, and to reach a compromise. For instance, in
the oral discussions of the four small groups and in 13 written reports, there is an
explicit acknowledgment of the benefits for the environment of a vegetarian diet. At the
same time, the problems that its potential mass adoption could entail for Galician
economy, where breeding has much greater weight than agriculture, are also recognised
in the debates of three groups and in 12 reports.
About the integration of the different dimensions, 10 (that is, a half) of the written
reports weaved all the dimensions in their arguments, and six more all but one. There
were three reports addressing only two dimensions, and two that focused exclusively in
nutrition. It is relevant for our purposes to examine not only the range of dimensions
articulated in their arguments, but also which dimensions were addressed, in other
words which dimensions were considered as essential for dietary choices. Table 1
summarizes this frequency.
!
7!
Table 1. Frequency of dimensions in the written arguments (N= 20)
Dimensions
Nutritional
Ecological
Ethical
Economic
Cultural
Reports
20
18
15
15
14
The nutritional dimension is considered in all the written reports, and it also occupies a
substantial amount of time in the oral discussions. The ecological dimension is
considered in 18. The other three dimensions are addressed in 15 (ethical, economy) or
14 reports (cultural).
In this sense the written reports of the four small groups examined in the study are
representative: two of them, B and D, articulated the five dimensions, group A
integrated four, all except the ethical one, and group C three, nutritional, ecological and
cultural. On the other hand the four of them supported the omnivorous diet with a
reduction of meat consumption.
Apparently these data would point to a greater weight of the nutritional
dimension: references to nutrition are used as justifications for choosing eating meat
over a vegetarian diet. An analysis of the justifications in the 20 written reports shows
that nutrition and health account for 29.5% of justifications, and ecology for 23.3% of
them (Brocos & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2016b). Some of these references draw from data,
either provided in the handout or collected by participants in the wiki. In other cases,
however, they only reproduce stereotypes and alternative ideas about food, for instance
that meat contains principally energy (rather than structural) nutrients “you eat meat
because lesser amounts provide you with more calories”, brought out by Daniel in turn
139 in the debate of group D.
At first sight, the references to cultural and social values are less prominent: it is
the dimension omitted in more reports, six, and it accounts for the smaller percentage,
15.2%, of the justifications. In the 10 groups choosing omnivorous diet with less meat,
there are 19.3% of justifications related to cultural and social values, being the third
type, below nutritional and ecological. However, a closer analysis of how are justified
the final options reveals the weight of cultural traditions as being the one tipping the
balance towards including meat in the diet. The introductory paragraphs of the report
from group A provide an example:
“From a cultural viewpoint, our habits regarding food have been the same since
many years ago, without stopping to think if the diet that we follow is more suitable
than others.
Our society also opts for an omnivorous diet, because most people eat it. If a
majority would have a vegetarian diet we would choose it, so we can say that a diet is
adopted because of heritage, fashion...”
This report began with an unusual critique to the lack of reflection about criteria
for diets. Then it explicitly acknowledges that their criterion for the choice is what it is
eaten by the social majority. In fact, their option is a “mixture of omnivorous and
vegetarian”, in other words, omnivorous with reduced meat consumption.
In other cases, as in the report from group B, cultural dimensions are considered
in the closing paragraph as a reason making “very difficult” dispensing altogether with
meat:
“[...] we all were born and live in a cultural context that conditions almost all our
daily practices. [...] meat plays a cultural role in ‘traditional’ Galician diet, so a
proposal for a change of diet that would dispense with it would be very difficult because
of the important loss of a consolidated symbolic expression that makes part of our
heritage.”
!
8!
In the next section some excerpts from the oral debates, revealing the importance
assigned to food cultural traditions, are discussed. As a summary, we may say that the
data point to a higher frequency of references to nutrition, but that the weight of social
and cultural habits was critical in the adoption of final choices.
Options about diets, or final choices, were not the only objects negotiated. Things
negotiated are termed negotia (singular negotium) by Baker (1994), who proposes a
range of types. From these we discuss the negotia identified in the oral debates of the
four groups, some drawn from Baker, some specific for the study's context, which are
summarized in Table 2. From the two broad classes proposed by Baker, negotia at task-
level and at communication level, we are focusing on the first one. It needs to be noted,
first, that negotia were coded in episodes, rather than in single turns, although, for the
purpose of illustrating them, in the table only one or two turns are reproduced; second,
that in oral discourse more than one negotia can be addressed in the same utterance.
Table 2. Negotia in the oral debates, number of episodes in Group D (N=45).
Classes
Negotia
Examples
# G D
Task-level:
Conative
(purposeful
action)
Task goals:
- Purpose of the task
- Orientation: social/ personal
- Task constraints: agreement;
considering several dimensions
- 4 Diana: Ok, first we need to
reach consensus about which diet is
better.
- 26 Bea: it is not the same to
decide a diet for everybody or
personally.
- 7 Blas: But: attending to each of
the dimensions?
2
Task-level:
Epistemic
Meaning of notions (instances)
- Ecological / vegetarian
- Energetic efficiency / energy
nutrients
- Are supplements food / diet?
- Can vegetarian diet include
some meat?
- 41 Alicia: ecological [...] is not
vegetarian!
- 305 Alicia: If you look, first [in
energetic efficiency] are potatoes. //
337Aaron: But [...] it doesn’t mean
that... a potato provides more
energy than beef.
- 80 Blas: a supplement is not diet,
is something external
- 114 Breixo: lactovegetarian is not
omnivorous.
12
Task-level:
Problem-
oriented
Task solutions:
- Options or choices
- Justifications for choices
- Weight of dimensions /
evidence
- 321 Carla: Maybe it’s better […]
an omnivorous diet, very low on
meat
- 335 Ana: […] the majority of
society has omnivorous diet so…
- 256 Blas: We have to pay
attention to nutrition, that is
important.
21
Methods or strategies
- Time management
- Metaknowledge strategies
- 279 Carmen: Well, so… let’s start
writing because time is running out
- 160 Breixo: I mean, you need
evidence.
10
!
9!
The number of episodes corresponding to each type of things negotiated in Group D
(N=45) is represented in the last column. Almost half of them, 21 episodes, correspond
to negotiations about task solutions, which seems coherent with the purpose of the task.
It needs to be noted that the addition of the two types of negotia within the problem-
oriented class, task solutions and methods, accounts for 31 episodes. Epistemic types of
negotia (meaning of notions) account for 12 episodes, and only two episodes
correspond to task goals, close to the beginning of the debate. Two excerpts illustrating
different negotia are discussed below.
An instance about task goals, in particular whether the task instructions or
constraints required one integrated argument or five arguments, one for each dimension,
is this excerpt from group B:
27 Borja: No, huh, in each dimension we need to choose which one would be
a more convenient diet, this is what I understood, that.
28 Bea: No, no, we need to choose one diet.
29 Borja: Ah, do we need to choose only one?
30 Breixo: Ideally we should reach an agreement among us...
31 Blas: Listen I also understood the same as Borja, from each dimension
which one is the more suitable diet and then making a final conclusion.
32 Borja: [inaudible] I understood that...
33 Bea: No, no, no, it is the one that we decide and then to explain because
which arguments...
34 Breixo: And to argue in favour of it, taking into account potential criticisms
or...
This issue, a doubt also emerging in other groups, follows a proposal by Bea,
which implied simultaneously taking into account two dimensions, ecological/
environmental and economic. In negotiation terms, Borja makes an offer to choose one
diet for each of the five dimensions. In that context the implication (that could be a
support) is that they could choose a vegetarian diet for the ecological dimension and an
omnivorous one for the economic. This would be much easier than articulating two
dimensions with opposing benefits and risks. The offer is rejected by Bea, who makes
an alternative offer (one diet), and accepted or supported by Blas (turn 31). Bea restates
her rejection, refining her counter-offer, adding the need to support their option with
arguments. Breixo supports Bea counter-offer, as indexed by the lexical connector
“and”, improving it with a further refinement, the need for taking into account potential
criticisms. This last sentence is an example of metaknowledge about one feature of
strong arguments, discussed in previous tasks in the argumentation sequence, although
it was not explicitly required in the handout (see Annex 1). Borja and Blas seem to
implicitly accept the goal, but a few turns after Breixo states that they should choose
only one diet, the researcher (second author) comes to the group and clarifies that they
do not need to choose one option for each dimension, but rather to take them into
account. It is not possible to know if without his intervention the debate would have
continued.
A second instance, about the meaning of notions, is part of a debate that went on
for more than 100 turns (sometimes interrupted by discussions about other issues) in
group A. It originates in their attempts to take into account the data about energy
efficiency:
280 Alicia: Here [handout] it also says... efficiency in the use of energy: with
a vegetarian diet you can feed 15 people with the same amount of land that is needed
to produce a meat diet for one person.
281 Aaron: There is plenty of land around the world.
282 Alicia: I mean, that for a society it also depends because... you feed more
people.
!
10!
[...]
299 Alicia: You can feed 15 people with the same amount of land needed to
produce a meat diet for a single person [...]
300 Aaron: But to feed them it doesn’t mean that it has the same energetic...
contribution, does it?
301 Alicia: Mmm... there are a lot of vegetables that give more energy
contribution than meat and all, see?
302 Aaron: But... well, but it doesn’t mean that.
303 Alicia: Meat is not one of these that [gives] more, huh?
304 Aaron: Yes, but but it doesn’t mean that [...]
305 Alicia: If you look [table about energetic efficiency in handout], first are
potatoes.
306 Aaron: How comes it is first?
[...]
311 Alicia: But not meat. Look here meat [table about energetic efficiency]
[...]
337 Aaron: But let’s see [...] it doesn’t mean that... a potato provides more
energy than beef. Do you understand?
[...]
377 Aaron: But all these data [from the ecological dimension] will always
support a vegetarian diet, but still it is not enough to... to have a decent health.
Although this is not the complete debate, it gives an idea of the negotiation about
the meaning of “energetic” and “energy”. Alicia offers a meaning for energy efficiency
(corresponding to the scientifically accepted one, about the more efficient energy use)
that is supported in evidence from the handout. She appeals to two pieces of
information, one about the proportion of land required for vegetarian or meat diets
(15/1), another from a table, translated from Eshel and Martin (2005), showing for
instance that the percentage of edible kilocalories with respect to incoming kcal is 415%
for soya, 123% for potatoes and 6.7% for beef. Aaron rejects that energy efficiency
meaning, opposing it a counter-offer related to the energy provided by diverse food and
nutrients, which is another issue, related to nutrition not to environment. Aaron’s
opposition is not grounded on data from the handouts or other sources, but rather on
alternative ideas, such as denying the scarcity of cultivable land, or claiming that meat
gives more energy than potatoes (fat provides 9 calories per gram; proteins and
carbohydrates provide 4, but proteins are rather used for structural purposes, or
building, while the body uses carbohydrates and fat to get energy). In argumentation
terms, we could say that Alicia is appealing to evidence and Aaron to pseudo-evidence.
When he cannot find data to support his position, he changes his arguments, claiming
that it takes more time to raise potatoes than cows. In turn 377 we may say that he
finally accepts Alicia’s offer, implying that a vegetarian diet is better for the
environment, but then he begins another argument, related to health. We interpret that
the underlying debate is vegetarianism versus meat diet, rather than restricted to the
meaning of “energy efficiency”.
Both excerpts illustrate the complexities involved in weighing dimensions such as
environment versus economic interests or nutrition.
Negotiation Paths and Mutual Appropriation of Interlocutors’ Positions
This section examines the results related to the second research question: Which
patterns, in terms of strategies and negotiation levels, reveal the negotiation paths in
four small groups? We first discuss the level of negotiation, and then we compare the
processes of negotiation in the four small groups, in terms of ways or strategies for
negotiation; finally the negotiation path from group D is analysed in detail.
!
11!
By negotiation level we mean the degree of interaction in the process, the
engagement with alternative ideas or positions. This is a dimension and coding
elaborated by the authors. From the immersion in our data we interpret that personal
interactions, in particular dialogic interactions, in Bakhtin's (1986) sense of taking into
account more than one viewpoint, and engaging with the interlocutors' statements, have
different strength in the argumentative discourse of the four groups, and in different
episodes within groups. First the rubric, summarized in Table 3, differentiates between
two types of negotiation levels, according to whether they consider only one negotium,
be it diet choice, justification, meaning for notions etc., or several alternative negotia.
Taking into account and comparing a range of alternative explanations, data
interpretations or decisions, is one of the criteria for argumentation quality; for instance
Ford (2008) proposes considering the critique or challenge of claims alongside the
construction of claims. The second column in Table 3 represents the four negotiation
levels, from which the first, level 0, could be interpreted as absence of negotiation, in
the cases when a given choice (justification, meaning, etc.) is proposed and implicitly
accepted by the group, but without even acknowledgment. However, Baker (1994)
proposes that negotiation exists even in the absence of conflict, considering a necessary
condition “the presence in the initial state of the cooperative goal of reaching an
agreement of some kind” (Baker, 1994; p. 207). Level 1 corresponds to episodes where
negotia are proposed and explicitly accepted, without contrasting them with
alternatives. In levels 2 and 3 there is explicit discussion of alternatives. The difference
is that in level 2 the process is unresolved, for instance because participants interrupt
their discussion and switch to another issue. In level 3 the negotiation progresses until
an agreement is reached, either by combination of alternative positions, as for instance
the attempts to combine omnivorous and vegetarian choices in a "mixed omnivorous" or
"omnivorous with reduced meat amounts" option, corresponding to Baker’s strategy of
joint refinement, or by concession of one or more participants who accept the
opponents' positions, corresponding to the strategy of persuasion.
Table 3. Negotiation levels, number of episodes in Group D (N=45). (N) Intragroup.
Types
Negotiation levels
Examples
# G D
Alternative negotia
(options,
justifications,
meanings, etc.) are
considered
3 Alternative Negotia
are discussed until
reaching agreement
- 338 Breixo: I… I, what you are
saying about the vegan diet, I
can… I can accept that, right?
8
(7)
2 Alternative Negotia
are discussed but
negotiation is
unresolved
- 80 Delia: But, it depends, for
example in the inland regions…
a lot of, I remember… Teacher,
I think you didn’t mention my
name [in taking attendance]
10
(9)
Alternative negotia
(options,
justifications,
meanings, etc.) are
not considered
1 Negotia are proposed
and explicitly accepted,
but not compared with
alternatives:
- 87 Ana: Do all of us agree,
omnivorous diet? // 88 Aaron:
Yes.
14
(7)
0 Negotia are proposed
but not discussed:
implicit agreement
- 173 Daniel: And then it says
here, well, the topic of intensive
breeding, the amount of
slaughtered animals. […]
And…. That’s it. It basically
says so [ethical dimension].
13
(12)
It needs to be noted that negotiation processes in the four groups can be distributed in
two sets of episodes, a first one that we interpret as predominantly intragroup,
!
12!
consisting of negotiations among the partners, five in group D, involving a joint
decision about one diet option. The second, after a decision is reached, we interpret as
extra-group, and it focuses on writing the report and eventually on preparing arguments
for the whole seminar debate with the other four small groups. In group D, the
intragroup episodes correspond to turns 1 to 375, during the first 36 minutes of debate,
and the extra-group episodes to turns 376 to 634, during 19 minutes. The rest of the
session is devoted to the introduction to the task (12 min) and the all class debate (23
min). The negotiation level of the second set is lower, as it could be expected, given that
the most relevant decisions were already made. For instance, in group D, from the 45
episodes there are 27 in levels 0 and 1, and 18, one third less, in levels 2 and 3.
However, if we focus on the episodes from the intragroup negotiation (between brackets
in the last column in Table 3), there are 19 in the lower levels and 16 in the higher
levels, a much smaller difference. Nevertheless, the number of episodes with high
degree of interaction, corresponding to level 3 where negotiation is carried out until
completed is only 8 for the whole debate (7 for the intragroup episodes).
The negotiation levels in the four small groups have some differences,
corresponding to different ways of negotiation. Table 4 summarizes the comparison of
the processes of negotiation in the four groups.
Table 4. Comparison of the processes of negotiation in the four small groups.
Ways/Group
A
B
C
D
Initial state:
opposition
versus
agreement
Initial agreement
Initial discursive
opposition
Implicit initial
agreement
Initial opposition
or conflict
between two
alternatives
Strategy:
assertive or
exploratory
Assertive:
decision first
Exploratory
Exploratory
Exploratory
Do they
reach
consensus?
(time & turn)
Yes
(minute 4, turn
90)
No
(They write the
report without
real agreement)
Yes
(minute 35,
turn 323)
Yes
(minute 34, turn
363)
How do they
manage
conflict?
(No conflict,
initial agreement)
Conflict
incompletely
solved: partly
through time
pressure and
majority weight
Conflict solved
by concession
because of
disinterested
position of
some actors
Conflict managed
through a
combination of
time pressure,
majority weight
persuasion &
Delia's concession
Decisive
dimension
(“final
word”)
Cultural /
personal
(implicit in
debate, explicit in
written report)
Nutritional and
Cultural
(nutritional
explicit in the
debate; cultural
explicit in the
written report)
Cultural /
personal
(implicit in
emotive
utterances)
Cultural
(explicit)
The processes of negotiation are compared with a focus on the diet options (rather
than in other negotia) considering five dimensions: 1) the departure point of the
negotiation or initial state in Baker's (1994) terms: examining whether there was
agreement from the beginning about the main negotium, the diet choice, or whether
!
13!
there were opposed alternatives; 2) the negotiation strategy followed in each group: we
distinguish between an assertive strategy, where a choice is first decided, and then
participants seek how to justify it with the data, and exploratory strategy, where
participants engage in an iterative process of evaluation of evidence, and of discussion
of the personal preferences of the group members, before deciding on an option; 3) the
consensus reached or the absence of it: in other words, whether they agreed on an
option, or whether the disagreement continued, even after producing a joint report on a
common choice; in the table the time and turn when consensus is reached; 4) conflict
management: How do they manage conflicts? For instance between alternative options,
when they exist; 5) Which dimension has greater weight in the final decision, an issue
discussed in the previous section. First, we characterize the process in each group.
Group A: there is an initial agreement on omnivorous diet with “less meat”,
entailing an early consensus in minute 4. This also conditions the assertive strategy,
focusing on how to justify their decision with the available data. In this they differ from
the other three groups, which evaluate evidence before reaching a decision. Because of
their early agreement there is no conflict about the type of diet, at least not explicitly,
and the process is rather one of co-construction of justifications for eating meat,
beginning with the cultural / personal dimension, which is the one that they prepared for
the wiki. There is however a long debate, mainly between Alicia and Aaron, about the
meaning of “energetic efficiency”, discussed above, which we interpret in terms of the
acceptability of vegetarianism. The decisive dimension seems to be what we interpret as
a combination of personal attitude against vegetarianism, and the weight of Galician
cultural tradition. These are rather implicit in the debate, although they are explicitly
stated in the written report, discussed in the previous section.
Group B: the initial state is neither clear opposition nor agreement. Two of the
four partners, Blas and Bea, propose an omnivorous diet within the first 15 minutes, and
a third one, Breixo, criticizes it, but rather questioning the lack of correspondence
between available evidence and omnivorous option, than with an explicit offer of a
vegan diet, which he suggest at several stages but as a “discursive option” of sorts (the
fourth partner is also in favour of omnivorous diet, although he does not speak much).
Their strategy is fully exploratory, examining in detail data and essays about values.
This conflict is only partially managed, as they do not reach a consensus. Rather, when
they realize that there are only 10 minutes left, they decide to write the report adopting
the position of the majority. In fact Breixo accepts writing it but later still questions the
omnivorous option, even in the whole classroom discussion. Two dimensions seem to
have greater weight: nutrition and health, occupying the longest part of the negotiation,
and cultural, which is implicit in the debate, while explicitly stated in the written report,
discussed in the previous section. The weight of the social value assigned to consensus
may also be considered: the instructor (first author) realizes that they disagree and tells
them explicitly that they can write the two options in the report, stating that they did not
reach agreement. However, they decide to opt for a joint one.
Group C: the initial state is rather an implicit agreement on a diet that would
include meat. Their strategy is exploratory; they plan to examine the data from the
different dimensions, discuss them, and they reach an explicit consensus about an
omnivorous diet with low meat consumption. The process is not a lineal one, for
instance, in turn 206 it seems that they are close to agree about an omnivorous option
reducing meat intake; however 40 turns later Carlos brings out the evaluation of data
about nutrition and of the essays about ethics, concluding that “vegetarian is the best
diet”, later they agree on a compromise (reducing meat). Conflict is managed rather
through concessions from the part of Carlos, who seems to be in what Baker (1994)
!
14!
calls a disinterested negotiative position, in other words he does not seem to have a
specific goal about the presence of his proposals in the final state. The decisive
dimension seems to be cultural / personal preferences expressed through emotionally
laden utterances (we examine elsewhere the use of emotive resources).
Group D: its process is discussed in detail below. It is the group where there is a
clearer explicit conflict in the initial state, although they reach a consensus through an
exploratory strategy. The conflict is managed through a combination of time pressure,
the weight of a majority (four to one), and persuasion seeking Delia’s concession.
Cultural habits about eating meat were decisive in the option.
An issue emerging from the comparison is the influence of the interactions, in
other words: How does the appropriation of dialogical contributions from others
influence the negotiation path?
The process is exemplified with the analysis of the negotiation in group D. This
group was chosen because the weight of cultural and social values was explicitly
acknowledged by several participants. In particular they refer to the consideration of
eating meat as the only acceptable diet. Although we interpret that this value was the
dimension with greater weight in the final decisions, in the other three groups it was
implicit or only mentioned as a potential prejudice against vegetarianism held by others.
The negotiation in group D proceeded from initial rejections of the opposed
alternatives (omnivorous / vegetarian) and progressed through a series of offers and
acceptances, involving actors in an appropriation of justifications for the opponent’s
option, which finally made possible reaching a consensus through concessions. The
path is represented in Figure 1, with two columns, one corresponding to the discursive
moves of the participants defending the omnivorous option, four of the five students,
the second to the discursive moves of the only participant defending the vegetarian
option, Delia.
In the first episode, Daniel proposes as early as turn 6 an “omnivorous balanced
(diet)”, while Delia claims “meat proteins can sometimes be replaced in another way”.
To this Daniel opposes that instead of replaced meat could be reduced, from instance
from 1 kg to 250 g (sic).
The relevance of Galician cultural traditions related to meat is first discussed
while summarizing the information about cultural dimensions in the handout. During 40
turns they bring out a variety of examples of meat-related feasts and traditions.
Although Delia makes an attempt to recall some vegetables-related events, she finally
acknowledges that meat is eaten in important occasions. This is the first time that she
makes a concession to justifications for the omnivorous position.
Another conflicting episode begins with Daniel questioning meat replacement on
nutritional grounds. He appeals to nutrition and health justifications, although not based
on the available data, but on hearsay, like “if you have anaemia, they recommend you to
eat red meat”. Delia questions this notion, pointing out that, according to data in the
nutritional handout a vegetarian diet with milk and eggs would be healthier. To this,
David opposes “healthier doesn’t mean balanced”, initiating a negotiation about
meanings. The conflict between replacing and reducing returns, until in turn 239 Daniel
initiates voting, and Delia, in a minority position, makes a concession accepting that it
could be “at least” reducing meat amount. In turn 363 she accepts the omnivorous
option, and thus consensus is reached. Ten turns later David and Daniel seem to
appropriate Delia’s position, proposing to add “taking into account the viability of a
fully vegetarian diet”, an addition, however, not included in the written report.
!
15!
Turns / Actors Omnivorous
9 Balanced but meat
proteins can be replaced
6 Omnivorous balanced
100 More meat festivals
Vegetarian
6, 18 Daniel
9 Delia
acceptance
18 Instead of replacing,
reducing meat
62 Diana
100 Delia 62 Galician meat culture
opposition
135 If you have anemia
you eat red meat
135 Daniel
157 Delia 157 My doctor gave me
alternatives to meat
188 The healthier diet would
be vegetarian with milk eggs
193 Healthier doesn't
mean balanced
188 Delia
193 David
offer
212 Daniel
244 Delia
212 You can reduce the
amount of meat 244 Vegetarian diet or at
least reducing meat
265 Daniel
320 Delia
265 Obviously for the
environment, vegetarian
320 Culturally, sure you feel
a pressure (to eat meat)
362 David
363 Delia
373 Daniel
362 We reached a
consensus that the best
diet was ...
373 Considering the
viability of a fully
vegetarian diet
363 ... a mixed [omnivorous]
diet
404 Delia
432 David
473 Daniel
404 My aunt was vegan (....)
my grandmother put ground
meat in the bean soup (...)
how far culture goes
432 [animal food] is part
of our culture, of our
tradition
473 Disproportionate
meat consumption is not
sustainable
Figure 1. Path of the negotiation process from group D.
While writing the report, they begin by the cultural dimension and the relevance of meat
in Galician food culture:
402 David: Pork and cow are above all.
403 Doris: Yes, it completely dominates, that’s it.
404 Delia: [...] when one of my aunts decided to be veg... vegan, I don’t know
if it was vegan or vegetarian but she didn’t eat any meat or fish, I remember a day
that my aunt was very annoyed because my grandmother cooked bean soup and she
grounded meat and blended it inside. I mean, imagine how far that culture goes
about that you cannot live only with this [vegs] that a grown adult does that to you.
!
16!
We interpret in this episode that Delia is “negotiating” with herself her acceptance of
the omnivorous option, explicitly acknowledging for her partners the weight of culture
and the social resistance to vegetarianism. Although the appropriation of partners’
contributions is not symmetrical, for Delia makes the biggest concessions, there are also
interventions as Daniel (turn 473) proposing to add that “disproportionate meat
consumptions are not sustainable”, a notion that was included in the written report.
In summary, the analysis of the negotiation path between opposing choices shows
that there is an appropriation of the dialogical contributions from others, even partners
supporting opposing notions.
Concluding remarks
This chapter seeks to examine the processes of negotiation about a socio-scientific issue
by student teachers working in small groups. The results point to some differences
between negotiations about purely scientific issues, as for instance physics problems
studied by Baker (2009), and negotiations about SSI. First, in SSI there are several
acceptable options, as is the case with a range of different diets, while in scientific
issues there is usually one acceptable solution. While in physics the processes of offers,
rejections and acceptance are more related to understanding concepts and interpreting
phenomena, in SSI the problems are more value-laden, involving, at least by some of
the actors, social and personal implications. The differences between acceptance and
belief are relevant for the argumentative context of decision making in SSI where values
are involved.
The comparison of the processes of negotiation, from initial to final state, in the
four small groups shows that, although conflict between two options, vegetarian and
meat diet, is explicit only in group D, there is an implicit conflict, perceived at least by
some participants in every group. This conflict opposes, on the one hand, nutritional and
ecological evidence, and ethical values, which would support vegetarian diet and, on the
other hand, evidence from Galician economy and their own sociocultural values, which
would support omnivorous meat diet, at least as the “default” option. This underlying
conflict is expressed in different ways, first, in some cases as a resistance to accept the
meaning and implications from data, as is the case with evidence about energetic
efficiency in groups A and D. The disposition of people to ignore or reject data that
contradict their beliefs, positions or theories has been shown in conceptual change and
argumentation studies (Chinn & Brewer, 1993). Second, it is expressed in the surprise
(not reproduced in the excerpts because of lack of space) shown by students when
realizing that evidence and reports from official bodies consider vegetarian diet
adequate and healthy, or more sustainable. This is understandable, given the social
image of vegetarianism in Galicia and Spain, as something weird, rather associated with
outsiders. Third, in two groups, B and C, there is one partner (Breixo and Carlos) that in
some episodes explicitly discusses the possibility of choosing a vegetarian or vegan
diet, at least as a potential option supported by evidence. However, in both groups this
negotiation is not carried to its last consequences, in B because Breixo accepts
interrupting it and beginning to write the report, under time pressure; in C because of
Carlos’ concession and disinterested negotiative position.
This comparison also points to differences in conflict management in the groups,
but also to some similarities, as for instance, time pressure and the need to complete the
task in particular in groups B and D; the value of consensus and the weight of the
majority, also in groups B and D, which means that the dissenting partner accepts to
present as the group argument an option that does not correspond to her or his own.
!
17!
A detailed analysis of the negotiation from group D illustrates a case of
constructive interaction (Baker, 1999), or cooperation among partners. Starting from
opposed alternatives it progresses through a series of offers and acceptances, which
involve participants in an appropriation of dialogical contributions from others, making
possible reaching a consensus through mutual concessions, although not symmetrical.
The study involved the elaboration of some instruments to analyse negotiation,
such as the rubric for negotiation levels, characterizing the degree of interaction in the
process, the comparison; the comparison of the processes among groups, or the
representation of the negotiation paths between conflicting positions. We suggest that
these instruments may have potential in order to examine processes of negotiation in
argumentation contexts.
Acknowledgements: work supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y
Competitividad (MINECO); Contract grant number: EDU2012-38022-C02-01. Pablo
Brocos’ work is supported by a Spanish Government scholarship, code FPU14/03755.
References
Achieve (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
Baker, M. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5(2), 199–254.
Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In G. Rijlaarsdam &
E. Espéret (Series Eds.) and P. Coirier & J. Andriessen (Vol. Eds.) Studies in Writing
Vol. 5. Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp 179–202). Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam Press.
Baker, M. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to
model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.) The
role of communication in learning to model, (pp. 303–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge.
In N. Muller Mirza, & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.) Argumentation and education:
Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genre and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptation of the practice
of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95: 473–498.
Brocos, P. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016a). What to eat here and now:
Contextualization of scientific argumentation from a place-based perspective. Paper
presented at the (NARST) conference. Baltimore, MD, April 14–17.
Brocos, P. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016b). Analysis of justifications in pre-
service teachers’ socio-scientific arguments about diets. Paper presented at the
European Researchers in Didactics of Biology (ERIDOB) conference. Karlstad.
Buty, C. & Plantin, C. (Eds.) (2008). Argumenter en classe de sciences [Engaging in
argumentation in science classrooms]. Lyon: Institut National de Recherche
Pédagogique.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge
acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction, Review
of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
Cohen, L. J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
!
18!
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2012). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative
research (pp.1–46). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation:
the pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eshel, G., & Martin, P. A. (2005) Diet, Energy, and Global Warming. Earth
Interactions. 10: 1-17
Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of
science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methods. London:
Routledge.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2016). Epistemic practices and scientific
practices in science education. In B. Akpan, & K. Taber (Eds.) Science Education:
An International Comprehensive Course Companion. Rotterdam: Sense (in press).
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education:
An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in
Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, (2015). Argumentation, In R. Gunstone (Ed.)
Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp 54–59). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Puig, B., Bravo, B., & Crujeiras, B. (2014). The role of
discursive contexts in argumentation. Paper presented at the National Association of
Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Pittsburgh, PA, March 30–April 2.
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl, & R. E.
Grandy (eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for research and
implementation (pp 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014).
Developing and using an S3R model to analyze reasoning in web-based cross-
national exchanges on sustainability. Science Education, 98, 517–542.
Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G.
Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education,
Volume II (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle
rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles. (The new rhetoric: A
treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969).
Perret-Clermont, A-N. (1979). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction
sociale. Berne: Peter Lang. (Social interaction and cognitive development in
children. London: Academic Press, 1980).
Plantin, C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions (The good reasons of emotions).
Bern: Peter Lang.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical
review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A
research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education,
89(3), 357–377.
!
19!
Annex 1. Task handout
Building an argument about diets
1. The task consists of producing an argument about the dilemma of dietary choice
working in small groups. The goal is to reach consensus within the group about what
diet is the best choice (conclusion). It may be noted the diversity of possible choices:
vegan diet, vegetarian diet, omnivorous with meat, omnivorous with fish, meat free
days (e.g. Ghent’s Thursday Veggie Day), etc. The conclusion must be supported by
data (evidence), drawn from the information handouts (documents 1 to 5), the wiki
(online) and previous knowledge (justification), which may help to relate data and
evidence. Your argument can take values into account.
2. Dimensions: Notice that this dilemma involves different dimensions (cultural-
personal, ecological, ethic, nutritional, socioeconomic), so you can study the
information handouts (data) and discuss partial questions separately such as: what is
best from a cultural/personal point of view? What is best for the environment and the
Earth? What is best for economy and society? What is best from an ethic point of view?
What is best for health and nutrition? The answers to these questions (partial
conclusions) can function as different lines of reasoning that can be integrated into a
final conclusion.
3. Criteria for strong arguments:
- Taking the available evidence (data, information) into account.
- Stating the conclusion clearly.
- Specifying which pieces of evidence support the conclusion and which ones refute or
criticize the choices rejected.
- Indicating what theories or knowledge were used to relate data and conclusions
(justifications). If that is the case, specify what values support the conclusion.
- Integrating as many dimensions as possible in the argument.
4. Writing a persuasive argument: Once consensus is reached, you must write down
your argument in order to persuade, for instance, another student of the faculty that your
choice is the best one.