students’ argumentation: knowledge, values and decisions stein dankert kolstø department of...
TRANSCRIPT
Students’ argumentation: knowledge, values and decisions
Stein Dankert Kolstø
Department of Applied Education, University of Bergen
Students’ decision-making on socio-scientific issues
Introduction
• Scientific literacy (AAAS)
• Risk society (Beck)
• Thoughtful decision-making (Aikenhead)
2
Research questions
Introduction
How did the interviewed students arrive at their views on an issue?
• What were their main arguments?
• What knowledge did they draw upon?
3
Risk issues
Introduction
Risk uncertain!
Risk issues = double issues:
• Political / ethical question
• Risk question
Risk focused argumentation
4
Cross-case study
Method
• Qualitative data and analysis
• In-depth interviews
• Twenty-two 16-year-old pupils
• Topical issue
• Cross-case: 22 students compared
5
Topical issue
Method
Power transmission lines: Do they increase the risk for childhood leukaemia for children living near such lines?
• Local power company applied for construction of lines through local residential areas
• Covered by local newspapers
6
Method
7
Interview questions
Method
• Personal decision
• Main arguments
• Knowledge regarded relevant
• Information needs
• Trustworthiness of information
• Trustworthiness of sources
8
Preparation phase
Method
1. Lesson (15 transparencies): • Newspaper articles• Information leaflet (from the power company)
• Meta-study (account)
2. Lesson:
Group discussions based on three questions asking for decision and arguments
9
Analysis
Method
Inductive analysis (not theory guided)
Code-and-retrieve (Atlas.ti)
Constant comparative method
Cross-case analysis
10
Foci for the analysis
Method
Focused on the claim in the argument, not on underpinning data or warrants
Aimed to categorise, not to identify strength or weaknesses in argumentation
Looked for all kinds of information used, not only scientific
11
Foci for the analysis
Method
Focused on the claim in the argument, not on underpinning data or warrants
Aimed to categorise students decision-making, not the structure of their argumentation
Looked for all kinds of information used, not only scientific
12
Method
13
Foci for the analysis
Method
Focused on the claim in the argument, not on underpinning data or warrants
Aimed to categorise students decision-making, not the structure of their argumentation
Looked for all kinds of information used, not only scientific
14
General findings
Findings
• A risk is neither proved nor disproved
• There is no consensus among the researchers on the risk question
• Argumentation was risk focused
• Attitude toward risk decisive
15
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty model (n=3)
• Small risk model (n=2)
• Relative risk model (n=6)
• Precautionary principle model (n=11)
16
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelDecision: Undecided
• Small risk model
• Relative risk model
• Precautionary principle model
17
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelTrue knowledge of the risk is needed
• Small risk model
• Relative risk model
• Precautionary principle model
18
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelTrue knowledge of the risk is needed
• Small risk modelDecision: Overhead lines ok
• Relative risk model
• Precautionary principle model
19
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelTrue knowledge of the risk is needed
• Small risk modelSmall risks make no issues
• Relative risk model
• Precautionary principle model
20
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelTrue knowledge of the risk is needed
• Small risk modelSmall risks make no issues
• Relative risk modelDecision: Overhead lines ok
• Precautionary principle model
21
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelTrue knowledge of the risk is needed
• Small risk modelSmall risks make no issues
• Relative risk modelFocus on relative risk
• Precautionary principle model
22
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelTrue knowledge of the risk needed
• Small risk modelSmall risks make no issues
• Relative risk modelFocus on relative risk
• Precautionary principle modelDecision: Underground lines
23
Decision models identified
Findings
• Uncertainty modelTrue knowledge of the risk needed
• Small risk modelSmall risks make no issues
• Relative risk modelFocus on relative risk
• Precautionary principle modelSeeking zero risk
24
The uncertainty model
FindingsVarg
Varg’s decision: Undecided
Varg’s view of the risk
Risk not known
No risk estimates remembered
25
The uncertainty model
Findings
Varg’s arguments for no decision:
1. There are several points of view (1)
2. Also electrical equipment gives ‘radiation’ (1)
3. Underground lines are expensive (2)
4. Risk neither proved nor disproved (2)
5. Reliable knowledge of the risk needed before making a decision (2)
26
The uncertainty model
Findings
27
Risk attitudeReliable knowledge of
the risk needed
Additional knowledgeEconomic consequences
Decisive knowledge:Disagreement on risk
Decision:No decision
Decisive value:Reliable decision-
base needed
The small risk model
FindingsKaren
Karen’s decision: Overhead lines ok
Karen’s view of the risk:
One additional case pr. year
The risk is small
28
The small risk model
Findings
Karen’s arguments for overhead lines:
1. It makes no difference (2)
2. Power lines probably less dangerous than everyday risks (2)
3. There is really no issue (2)
29
The small risk model
Findings
30
Risk attitudeSmall risks make no
issues
Additional knowledge:Economic consequences
Decisive knowledge:Risk estimates
Decision:Overhead lines
Decisive value:Small risks are a
natural part of living
The relative risk model
FindingsArne
Arne’s decision: Overhead lines ok
Arne’s view of the risk:
Could be a small risk, but we do not know yet
31
The relative risk model
Findings
Arne’s arguments for overhead lines:
1. The ‘radiation’ is comparatively small (5)
2. The costs are huge (4)
3. Assess whether it is worth the money (5)
32
The relative risk model
Findings
Risk attitudeFocus on the relative risk
Decisive knowledge:Relative costs
Decisive knowledge:Relative field strength
Decision:Overhead lines
Decisive value:Cost effectiveness
33
The precautionary principle model
FindingsAina
Aina’s decision: Underground lines
Aina’s view of the risk:
The possible risk is small, and not proved
The small risk is unacceptable
34
The precautionary principle model
Findings
Aina’s arguments for underground lines:
1. Important to play safe (3)
2. There is a potential risk (1)
3. Residents’ feelings should count (3)
4. The magnetic field from underground lines is weaker (2)
35
The precautionary principle model
Findings
36
Risk attitudeSeeking zero risk
Additional value:Consider residents feelings
Decisive knowledge:Potential risk
Decision:Underground lines
Decisive value:Play safe
Working hypothesis
Discussion
Attitude toward small uncertain risks decisive
37
Students’ opinions on socio-scientific risk issues:
Science education for citizenship
Discussion
Scientific information was crucial to all students’ decisions
38
Science education for citizenship
Discussion
Scientific information was crucial to all students’ decisions
Increase the decision-base towards societal consequences?
39
Science education for citizenship
Discussion
Scientific information was crucial to all students’ decisions
Increase the decision-base towards societal consequences?
Are all decision models equally respectable?
40
Consequence for science education
Discussion
Attitude toward small uncertain risks decides
41
1. Focus more on the concept of risk?
2. Challenge the students’ attitude toward small uncertain risks?
42
43
Introduction
Students’ decision-making on socio-scientific issues
Prior research findings:
• Not decide on acceptability of ‘gene’ (Lewis )
• Cost and effectiveness (Ratcliffe)
• Conflict of views, clearer reasoning (Ratcliffe)
• Legitimacy of the spokesperson (Gaskell)
• Social rather than non-social cognition (Fleming)
Conceptual framework
Method
• Social dimensions in science
• Core science and frontier science
• Industrialised science
• Decisions as based on interplay between information and personal values.
• Argument as a claim underpinned by data to support a view.
44
The small risk model
Findings
Karen’s counter argument:
4. Airborne lines are not beautiful to look at (1)
Karen’s tentative arguments:
5. Knowledge of psychological consequences important (4)
6. Economic consequences should count (3)
45
The relative risk model
Findings
Arne’s counter argument:
4. Avoid anxious residents (1)
46
The precautionary principle model
Findings
Aina’s tentative argument for overhead lines:
5. If dangerous to the earth (1)
47