Guidelines on standards for argumentation on socio-scientific issues
The benchmarks presented on this page are available in PDF format: here.
Argumentation is a process by which individuals construct, justify, question, and/or evaluate statements (which may express points of view or emotions, draw on knowledge, etc.). Argumentation can be considered a social practice, intrinsically dialogical, based on a set of norms.
1. Generic standards for argumentation
Argumentation is governed by norms that define what constitutes good argumentation. These norms can be generic or specific to the context in which the argumentation develops. Three generic norms are particularly important and deserve to be addressed in the school context: justification, consideration for others, and questioning.
1.1. The standard of justification
Every statement must be supported by justifications, which are reasons for accepting the statement. These justifications can take several forms: support based on empirical data (experiences, observations, etc.), consistency with already accepted knowledge, reference to a source, conformity with values, testimonials, etc. Justification is essential for transforming a simple statement into a valid argument.
1.2. The standard of "consideration for others"
Argumentation is a dialogical process in which the arguments and viewpoints of other participants must be taken into account. This involves developing, refuting, or qualifying the viewpoints of others, which helps to enrich the argument.
1.3. Questioning
Questioning and challenging statements, whether those of others or your own, is a driving force behind argumentation. It encourages you to examine the justifications put forward and consider counterarguments in order to strengthen or adjust your position.
2. Standards specific to the context of socio-scientific issues (SSI)
A distinction can be made between purely scientific questions and socio-scientific questions (SSQs), the latter being defined as societal questions that involve science and/or technology. These two types of questions require specific argumentative standards. In the case of experimental sciences, two standards prevail: justification by empirical evidence and consistency with established theories, models, or laws. SSQs call for other types of justification, incorporating ethical, social, political, or other dimensions. Here are some examples of SSQs: Should new nuclear power plants be built? Should electric cars be made mandatory? Should we ban glyphosate in agriculture? Arguments on these issues must comply with three specific standards: complexity, uncertainty, and openness.
2.1. Standard complexity
QSS involves multiple dimensions, not only scientific and technical, but also axiological (values), economic, educational, environmental, experiential, political, health, and social. An argument that integrates and links different dimensions allows for a comprehensive understanding of QSS.
2.2. Standard uncertaintys
The knowledge used in QSSs is subject to uncertainty. It is important to distinguish between two types of uncertainty: uncertainties related to knowledge, which concern what science does not yet know or what remains to be discovered, and uncertainties related to global change, which refer to future changes in areas such as climate, society, or technology, which cannot be accurately predicted. Both types of uncertainty are to be expected in a high-quality argument.
2.3. Standard openness
QSSs are open-ended questions that allow for multiple perspectives and possible answers. The argumentation must accept the multiplicity of legitimate perspectives, which reflect the values and interests of different actors in society, such as business leaders, representatives of associations, parents, etc.
2.4. Interconnection of specific standards
The three specific standards (complexity, uncertainty, openness) are interconnected. The complexity of a QSS reinforces its open nature, as society's stakeholders may prioritize different dimensions (e.g., the environmental or economic dimension). Similarly, the uncertainties inherent in QSSs make alternative points of view acceptable, which reinforces their open nature.
To go further:
Bächtold, M., Pallarès, G., De Checchi, K., & Munier, V. (2023). Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 761–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21816
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 29–45). Springer Science + Business Media.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–28). Springer.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Pallarès, G., Bächtold, M., & Munier, V. (2020). Digital debates to develop students' argumentative skills on socio-scientific issues? Research in Science and Technology Education, 22, Online article. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdst.3573
Pallarès, G., De Checchi, K., & Bächtold, M. (2023). What teaching methods should be used to develop critical thinking? An approach based on the standards of critical argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Research in Science and Technology Education, 28, Online article. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdst.5221
Plantin, C. (2016). Dictionary of Argumentation: An Introduction to Argumentation Studies. ENS Éditions.
Polo, C. (2014). Water in the mouth: students' resources and argumentative work during socio-scientific debates on drinking water [Doctoral thesis, Lumière Lyon 2 University].