SUMMARY
Biotechnology applications are used in many different fields, from the chemicals industry to agriculture and from medical diagnoses to the pharmaceuticals and environmental sectors, and their repercussions are the subject of much debate. Argumentation is a key to the build-up of knowledge, and is a crucial aspect of scientific education in a democracy. The issue for educationalists is how to develop argumentation skills among pupils, so as to enable them to participate in debates as citizens. One of the main concerns is to enable pupils to identify and determine the validity of their emotional standpoints and of the arguments used by scientists, popularisers, teachers, other students and themselves, and to recognise the different stages involved in making decisions.
The value of the didactic strategies applied to fulfil this goal (debates, role play, discussions, simulations, etc.) lies in their potential for opening up the school environment to a dimension that reaches beyond the acquisition of knowledge, by socialising and contextualising such knowledge and debating the issues that arise from it. The fundamental goal is, effectively, to help pupils become fully engaged in society.
This paper places the various theories on argumentation in context and presents a method for analysing the didactic strategies that have been put forward to develop pupils’ argumentation skills in the area of biotechnology. Five supporting examples are considered. Our analysis focuses successively on the social characteristics at play and on the procedures recommended. Our aim is not to make value judgements, but to attempt to produce analytical tools to support designers and users of teaching materials in making their choices.
KEY WORDS: biotechnology education, argumentation
RESUME
Les biotechnologies ont des champs d’application très variés, de l’industrie chimique à l’agriculture, et du diagnostic médical et de l’industrie pharmaceutique à l’environnement. Leurs répercussions sont sujettes à débats. L’argumentation est au cœur de la construction des savoirs ; elle doit avoir un rôle central en éducation scientifique dans une perspective démocratique. L'enjeu éducatif est de développer les compétences argumentatives des élèves pour qu'ils puissent participer aux débats en tant que citoyens. Il s’agit, entre autres, de permettre aux élèves d’identifier leur posture affective, les arguments utilisés par les scientifiques, les vulgarisateurs, les enseignants, les autres élèves et eux-mêmes, leur validité, les étapes d’une prise de décision...
L’intérêt fondamental des stratégies didactiques mises en œuvre (débat, jeu de rôle, discussion, simulation,…) est d’ouvrir l’école au-delà de l’apprentissage des connaissances. Les savoirs sont socialisés, contextualisés. Leurs enjeux sont débattus. Il s’agit d’un apprentissage social.
Cette communication situe différents courants théoriques portant sur l’argumentation et présente une méthode d’analyse de stratégies didactiques proposées pour développer l’argumentation des élèves sur les biotechnologies. Cinq exemples supports sont traités. L’analyse est centrée successivement sur les caractéristiques sociales et sur les procédures préconisées. Il ne s’agit pas de porter un jugement, mais d’essayer de se donner des outils d’analyse permettant aux concepteurs et aux utilisateurs d’étayer leurs choix.
Mots clés: éducation biotechnologique, argumentation
1 - Importance of argumentation and decision making
Biotechnology different fields of applications generates debates. To develop pupils’ argumentation skills help them to contribute to the debates. Pupils should be helped to identify their own emotional standpoint, the arguments used by scientists, popularisers, teachers, other pupils and by themselves, the validity of these arguments, the different stages in decision-making, and so on. The aim is to help pupils to identify the criteria and information which support a point of view, theirs as well as those held by others, so that they can problematise the issue. The most effective means to meet this objective is discussion (in the generic sense).
This paper describes a method for analysing didactic strategies which aim to help pupils to develop sound arguments on the subject of biotechnology, through five supporting examples. The analysis focuses successively on social characteristics and on the recommended procedures. Our aim is not to make value judgements, but to attempt to produce analytical tools to support designers and users of teaching materials in making their choices.
2 - Argumentation and justification
The studies of the pupils’argumentation relies upon the theories of communication, rhetoric and linguistic. We also used the "économies de la grandeur" theory as a framework, also called "sociology of justification". It first appeared as a new theoretical and methodological paradigm in a work by Boltanski and Thévenot (1991).
The authors consider that there are several " worlds " in which action takes place and where people call on various skills to cope with their undertakings. This implies that human actions are structured around principles of justification, commitment and criticism. The sociology of justification is a study of discussion and debate. The crucial point in justification processes is the " orders of importance " that are attached to objects of debate.
" Cities " and " worlds "
Boltanski and Thévenot then attempt to define the different " cities ", though without claiming to be exhaustive. A " city " is defined by a set of conventions and rules that are recognised by each of its members, and represents a theoretical model built up from classic works on political philosophy. The concept of a " common world " bridges the gap between philosophical and political thinking and pragmatic action.
The " world of inspiration " : The political philosophy that serves as a reference for the " city of inspiration " is identified in the work of Saint Augustine. The true greatness of such a city rests on grace (faith), and is opposed to any quest for glory, fame or other form of human dependency. In such a city, imagination, mystery, originality and the invisible are the highest orders of importance.
The " domestic world " : The underlying philosophy here is drawn from the writings of La Bruyère and Bossuet. Rules are based on reputation and custom. There is an emphasis on the gradual accumulation of qualities through learning and proximity. Fidelity in relationships over time, good will and trust are the foundations of consensus.
The " world of opinion " : Here, the worth of a person is established through the opinion of others. Boltanski and Thévenot draw in this case on the writings of Hobbes, the 17th century philosopher whose thinking was devoted to the definition of honour. The truth of an individual’s worth cannot be brought into question when it is recognised by others : "celebrity creates worth".
The " world of civics " : To identify the values underlying this " city ", the authors refer to Rousseau’s Social Contract. The sovereignty of the " city " as a whole is disincarnate and depends on the will of all its members. The value of individuals lies in their belonging to a collective being of greater importance. Collective values are instrumentalised and greater than individual interests, with democracy being the most appropriate order of importance.
The " world of trade " : Orders of importance here are drawn from an analysis of the work of Adam Smith. Competition between economic players, through markets, promotes an optimal use of resources and thus contributes to the overall good of society. Profits are legitimate, and any obstacle to freedom of circulation is prohibited. Quality is assessed through prices.
The " world of industry " : As developed by Saint-Simon, the political philosophy of the industrial " city " defines utility as the responses made in order to satisfy needs. The recognised order of importance rests on performance, methods, etc. Material investment has a predominant role. Methods of operation are highly instrumentalised, and rules and regulations, standards and technical constraints, have an important place. Standardisation of quality is at the core of the " world of industry ".
3 — Analysis of supporting examples
Five situations were analysed, each focusing on a different biotechnology application: situations Œ and involved the set—up of a breeding unit for giant transgenic salmon (Simonneaux, 1997), situation Ž concerned human cloning (Simonneaux, 1999), situation genetic screening (Waarlo, 1999), and situation the production of onco-mice (Harms, 1997). Each situation was developed as part of a didactics research study. Situation Œ was initially set up as a role play within an EIBE module (European Initiative for Biotechnology Education), and the didactic design was published by Simonneaux et al., 1997. Its impact was compared with the impact of a classic debating situation (situation ) in the classroom, on the same subject (Simonneaux, to be published). Situation was included in the same EIBE module as situation Œ (on animal transgenesis).
These situations may be classified as problem situations in the broadest sense, and more specifically as debating situations. The problem situations used in didactics research are illustrated through a complete and fairly specific scenario. Two factors are crucial to their design (a process known as didactics engineering), particularly when defining the initial problem : the content, which has to be carefully chosen, and exact management of a succession of different and distinct moments that have to be closely associated with the content. Problem situations are rarely dealt with in the literature, and devising them is a major task (a research task).
Any statement or argument has a context. It is conditioned by the culture of the social group in question, socio-professional identity, and the situations and people under consideration. This is equally true for scientists themselves. Their points of view are influenced by the current scientific environment, by their commitments (private funding of research programmes) and by their personal values. It may be said that any argument has its specific context and time. Thus, the social characteristics of the situations set out for pupils have to be taken into account.
Context
One way of trying to apprehend the extent to which the knowledge under consideration is socialised is to analyse the context of the proposed situations. The idea is to identify the type of social context (company, village, locality, family, etc.) and the degree of personalisation (social groups, key socio-professional figures identified and described, interests, motivations, questions, values). The context may be local or global. In situation Œ , the context - a village within its economic and ecological environment - is predominantly local. In a coastal village near a fishing port, Yann Le Goff, a fish farmer, is thinking of breeding salmon which have been genetically modified to grow faster and become giant-sized. He calls them Sumotoris, after the Japanese wrestlers. The local population has expressed concern about the project. A group of fishermen, consumers, members of a nature conservation organisation and conventional fish-farmers has set up a committee to fight the project. But Yann Le Goff has supporters, especially the salmon processing factory and some municipal councillors. The Mayor has decided to organise a public debate, with guest experts. Although the situation is highly personalised, several issues (ecology, human health, famine in the developing world, rules and regulations, etc.) add a broader dimension to the topic under discussion. Situation addresses the same topic (start-up of a Sumotori salmon farm), but in this case, the problem is considered per se rather than within a local, identified and personalised context. In situation Ž , human cloning is considered in a global context. The discussion is initially prompted by quotes giving contrary opinions from pupils, ethics experts, scientists and the ‘man in the street’. Genetic screening in situation is addressed in a personalised context, with a video showing two real-life cases in which people are confronted with cancers of genetic origin. In situation , the context is a company in the grip of a financial crisis. The Pharma Company, AnyGene in Manchester used to be one of the most successful companies in the field of gene technology applied to medicine. They specialised in research into and treatment of hereditary diseases. For about eight years the company was very successful, selling the medicines produced by transgenic bacteria. During this time other companies in various parts of the world were also successful in this field of research, creating considerable competition and causing a dramatic drop in Pharma’s profits.
In an attempt to overcome this problem, Pharma’s management first of all fired fifty employees, a quarter of the workforce. Secondly, it was clear that in order to keep the investors happy and to get the company out of the red and making good profits, new innovations were essential. During a "crisis meeting" researchers decided to work with mice. The aim of the researchers was to "construct" a transgenic mouse which could be used as a disease model for investigations onto the development of the brain tumour and to try out medicines to prevent its growth.
The managing director was pleased with the plans but some other members of the management team objected to them. They drew attention to a particular rule in the company policy stating that any genetic modification of mammals had to be fully discussed and decided upon by an ethics commission consisting of researchers, management and experts on ethics.
Categories of people involved
The different situations may or may not involve people of different social categories, who have individual differences. Many people of different social standing are involved in the role play situation (situation Œ ) : the fish farmer who wants to open the transgenic fish farm, the owner of the canning factory who is interested in the project, a traditional fish farmer, a master fisherman, a " with it " media studies pupil, a gastronome, a fishmonger, a leader of an environmental association, a researcher in fish physiology, a member of the Surf Rider Foundation which is concerned on ecological issues on the seaside, a young mother who is pro organic agriculture, the Mayor, an African Ph D pupil in biotechnology. Each one is characterised according to his (her) socioprofessionnal status, his (her) convictions and questions. In the situations and Ž , there is no actors. In the situation , the first part of the video deals with a father and his three sons. The boys are confronted with a genetic thyroid gland cancer of their father. In the second part a girl is confronted with genetic breast cancer in her family. In the situation , actors are less personified, they are researchers, management and experts on ethics.
Pupils’ involvement
The degree to which pupils become involved is conditioned by various factors which may or may not be inherent to the situation at issue, depending on whether they feel concerned or motivated by the situation and on any constraints that may be imposed upon them (acting out roles in the role play situation, freedom to express themselves or not in the debate when they are observers, etc.), but also on their own personalities (expansive or reserved), on their social representations, on the didactic habits of their teacher, and so on.
Categories of information
Biotechnology input was supplied to the pupils in all five situations analysed. Other types of input (in sociology, ethics, economy, ecology, regulation) were provided to varying degrees or not at all, either because the relevant context was not appropriate (ecological information in the human cloning situation), or as a result of the designer’s choices. It can obviously be assumed that the type of information given to pupils would be likely to influence the quality of their arguments.
b) Procedures
The designers suggested an approach to the teachers for each situation to be analysed. They cannot be describe in details here. They clearly differ according to the didactic choices of the designers, who thus reveal their own hypothesis on the process whereby pupils learn how to argue out a decision. The procedures suggested are summarised in the table below.
Situations Œ Ž Procedures Preparation of the role play (protagonists and observers)
ò Performance and observation of the role play ò Analysis of the role play and individual decisions argued out Debate with all participants
ò Individual decisions argued out Individual preparation ò Debate in pairs ò Debate between pairs ò Debate between all participants Individual preparation ò Written exchanges in groups of four ò Debate between all participants ò Individual decisions argued out, outside school Supervised individual preparation ò Debate among the two groups involved (researchers & ethics experts) and decisions argued out ò Debate between all participants Table 1 : Comparison of suggested procedures
We shall now attempt to define the dominant hypothesis underlying each situation, on the basis of this formal analysis. It was assumed in situation Œ that the socio-professional contextualisation would make it possible for pupils to examine all the aspects of the arguments put forward. In situation , it was assumed that as pupils were free to express their own opinions, they would be better able to express their arguments. In situation Ž , it was assumed that the crescendo analysis of the arguments would support their reasoning processes. In situation , it was assumed that encouraging a meta-cognitive approach would improve the quality of decision making on the basis of the arguments put forward. In situation , the learning process focusing on an ethics-based approach was assumed to encourage reasoning among pupils.
Pupils were either encouraged or not to identify the principles (values) guiding their arguments. They may or may not be required to identify the limits to their reasoning (for example by considering the question : what circumstance(s) might make you change your opinion ?). In all cases, the individual and collective stages took place alternately. All the designers felt that social interaction and individual preparation were both essential.
Situation Πwas specific in one respect, which was the emphasis placed on the post-debate stage. The aim here was to bring out the stages in reasoning a posteriori, to help pupils take a more distanced view, or in other words, to adopt a meta-cognitive and " meta-emotional " approach. The following comments were prompted by our assessments of situations Π, and .
The teacher’s role
The main difficulty for teachers is to remain neutral when leading a debate. There can be a bias in pupils’ arguments stemming from their institutional relationship with the teacher (" it might be as well to agree with teacher ", and in any case, pupils will always attempt to figure out their teacher'’ opinion and will explicitly ask for it at the end of the activity).
Oral participation and arguments
The major problem in the debate was the reserve shown by some of the pupils. However, among all the studies we have conducted so far, this was the first in which we observed changes of opinion. Our previous results had not been particularly surprising insofar as opinions — as the foundations of social representations - are not easily shifted. Before and after a number of formal and informal learning sequences (visits to exhibitions), we had always found knowledge being appropriated without any changes of opinion. But in these situations, the pupils had not been asked to discuss issues orally. Could it be that it is in actually expressing points of view and being confronted with opposing arguments that we clarify our thoughts on a given subject, as asserted by Barnes & Todd (1977) and Lewis et al. (1999) ? If so, the didactic strategy involving class discussions, whether through role play or debate, would seem to be a useful way of helping pupils to develop their arguments.
Impact of contextualisation and multidisciplinary input on argumentation
In this field, there is no single reference argument resting on an expert’s point of view. This highlights the importance of values in pupils’ arguments.The quality of arguments seems to depend on the context given, on the application under consideration and on the didactic strategy being used (and particularly the multidisciplinary input supplied).
With reference tosociology of justification, we identified four " worlds " : trade, civics, industry and inspiration. Supporting arguments from the " world " of civics were in the majority. Here, the collective interest is predominant, through respect for legal forms. Supporting arguments from the world of civics partly overlapped with medical concerns. There were connections with other topics, such as poverty, animal welfare, loss of the village heritage or social development in the village, unemployment, the crucial problem of maintaining quality, consumer information and the need to establish tests and inspections. The " world " of trade was mostly called on in terms of opposition. Here, competition between the protagonists, through market forces, promotes the optimal use of resources. Profits are legitimate. This is where the pupils found most of their counter arguments. Commercial arguments that might have countered their own were rejected outright, to cut the discussion short, in line with the rules of rhetoric. The " world of inspiration " holds all that is sacred. Here, it was called on in references to nature. Establishing the Sumotori fish farm goes against nature. Man sees himself as a demigod. The techniques invented by people to serve their needs and culture will permanently disrupt the balance of nature. This mythical register has a lot to do with what might be called " holy terror ". Supporting arguments from the " world of industry " were very much in the minority. Ecological concerns are expressed in scientific terms (biodiversity, ecosystem, etc.) or in more commonly used terms (nature). Should these be classified in the " world of civics ", or the " world of inspiration " ? Or elsewhere ? We placed arguments expressed in terms of biodiversity and ecosystems in the world of civics, and those associated with nature in the world of inspiration. But perhaps we should look into the possible emergence of another " world ", in addition to those defined by Boltanski & Thévenot, a world in which new social demands are being expressed in connection with the environment, a " world of ecology " ?
Concluding remarks :
We described the issues underlying this analysis in our introduction : to propose tools to help educational designers and users to support their choices. We conducted a formal analysis of the situations put to pupils, i.e. of the scenarios containing stage-by-stage descriptions of the tasks to be performed by the pupils. This a priori formal analysis cannot include the changes that are bound to be made in scenarios in a school situation (before the teaching sequences take place, user-teachers will adapt the material proposed according to their priorities, their personalities and to whether they decide to work on their own or in a multidisciplinary situation : the resulting adjustments to the scenarios during teaching sequences is where the wealth and flexibility of teaching lies). The authors encourage teachers to adapt and change them, and even to cut out certain parts. Finally, it should be realised that whatever the strategies and situations used, neutrality can never really be achieved. Points of view will always pervade whatever may be stated. The issue in this kind of analysis is to help designers and users to become fully aware of the choices they make and of the forms that reveal or support them.