This thesis aims to explore students’ argumentation and decision-making relating to authentic socioscientific issues (SSI). The ability to make informed decisions about socio scientific issues has been recognized to be an important element in science education to achieve the goal of scientific literacy. However, deliberation on SSIs deals with the fact-value intertwinement and has proven to be a tricky affair, both for students and teachers. In paper I, the focus is on upper secondary students’ use of different reasons in arguing about the existence of wolfs in Sweden. To investigate the students’ ability to find supporting reasons from different subject areas in their informal argumentation, the SEE-SEP model was used as an analytical framework. The results showed that the value aspect dominates students’ informal argumentation on the SSI of wolves in Sweden. In paper II a six-step SSI instructional model is presented, designed to develop students’ ability to argue about complex multi-disciplinary issues. This six-step SSI instructional model aims to create a forum that encourages students to interact with one-another and discuss their arguments dynamically. In paper III students’ argumentation and decision-making upon an authentic SSI relating to environmental toxins in fish from the Baltic Sea, was studied. The students’ argumentation and decision making processes were followed closely and data were collected during multiple stages of the SSI-instructional model. The analysis focused on students’ skills of evaluation and the relationships between the values, knowledge and experiences that they used in their argumentation. The results showed that even though all of the students had access to the same information and agreed on the factual aspects of the issue, they came to different decisions, depending on their background values, knowledge and experiences (i.e. their intellectual baggage). Implications for teaching and research are discussed. / Förmågan att fatta välgrundade beslut i sociovetenskapliga dilemman (SSI) har lyfts fram som ett viktigt inslag i naturvetenskaplig undervisning för att förbereda eleverna på ett liv som medborgare i ett samhälle där kontroversiella frågor med naturvetenskaplig koppling förekommer i allt högre grad. Att hantera SSI-frågor i undervisningen och handskas med sammanflätningen av vetenskapliga fakta, värderingar och etiska perspektiv innebär dock stora utmaningar för både elever och lärare. Fokus i denna avhandling är inriktat mot att ytterligare synliggöra de ingående komponenterna och processerna som sker i arbetet med SSI-frågor, och därmed belysa viktiga aspekter som bör iakttas vid implementering av SSI-frågor i undervisningen. Genom studie I detekteras olika argument baserade på kunskaper, värderingar respektive erfarenheter kopplat till olika ämnesområden, och i studie II förs resonemang att det s.k. intellektuella baggaget, bestående av personliga värderingar, kunskaper och erfarenheter, styr viktning och värdering av olika argument och därmed vilket beslut som slutligen tas. En given slutsats är att SSI-baserad undervisning i det naturvetenskapliga klassrummet alltid måste bygga på en tolerans för en sammanflätning av vetenskapliga fakta, värderingar och etiska perspektiv.

Univ., Diss.--Lausanne, 2002.

Magister Educationis - MEd / The research reported in this paper involves the use of dialogical argumentation in scientific context with 7-9 year olds as part of teaching and learning in primary classrooms. To develop an understanding of scientific concepts, four suitable collaborative activities on river pollution were used as a stimulus to effectively engage learners in scientific reasoning and use evidence for decision-making through cognitive harmonization. The research, involved four groups of five children each. Data were collected through analysis of children’s Water Pollution Questionnaire (WPQ), classroom observation, documentation of field notes, conversations and focus group interviews. The study found that all groups were able to engage in the activities to some extent, but that good quality argumentation develops when children are familiar with working in this manner. This study sought to investigate the opportunities, possibilities and challenges associated with a dialogical argumentation teaching and learning approach in a primary school science class A mapping technique was used to analyze the children’s discussions and identify the quality of their different “levels” of argument. This study confirmed that an argumentation based instruction was an effective way of enhancing learners’ understanding of river pollution. The learners’ listening skills improved tremendously and they were actively involve during discussions and provided claims with valid grounds or reasons. They were also very enthusiastic and challenged each other’s claims during these argumentation lessons, but most of all was the enjoyment that was visible on their young faces. Further research needs to be carried out over a longer period to determine the effectiveness of an argumentation based instruction. / South Africa

Magister Scientiae - MSc / This study was based on the Science and Indigenous Knowledge Systems Project (SIKSP) at the School of Science and Mathematics Education, University of the Western Cape. The project seeks to enhance educators' understanding of and ability to implement a Science-IKS curriculum (Ogunniyi, 2007) through using the theoretical framework of argumentation (Toulmin Argument Pattern) to the extent that learners would value the significance of both worldviews. This study sought to find the effects of an Argumentation-Based Instruction on grade 10 learners' understanding of the causes of pollution at a river site. Since the integration of Science and IKS are envisaged by Curriculum 2005 (C2005), two theoretical argumentation constructs have been used namely, Toulmin's (1958) Argumentation Pattern (TAP) and Ogunniyi's (1995) Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT). / South Africa

Magister Educationis - MEd / This study investigated 1) the conceptions on capacitors held by a group teachers in the Western Cape; 2) the effect of a dialogical argumentation instructional model on the teachers’ conceptions on the capacitor; and 3) the teachers’ perceptions on the implementation of this instructional model. The theoretical framework of the study was based on Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (TAP) and Ogunniyi’s Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT). The objective was to retrain science teachers in their awareness and understanding of the Nature of Science and Indigenous Knowledge Systems thereby enhancing their ability and efficacy in integrating science and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. The study involved workshop activities that included the teachers’ Reflective Diary, interview sessions, and video-taped lesson observations. The study adopted a Case Study approach and the data was analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings of the study showed that: 1) the teachers held varying conceptions of the capacitor; 2) the teachers’ conceptions of the capacitor improved after being exposed to the Dialogical Argumentation Instructional Model and 3) the teachers were dominantly in favour of the Dialogical Argumentation Instruction Model as a teaching method to be introduced at schools. The implications of the findings for school science and pedagogy were highlighted for closer observation.

No description available.

Argumentation framework is a common technique in Artificial Intelligence and related fields. It is a good way of formalizing, resolving conflicts and helping with defeasible reasoning. This thesis discusses the exploration of the quantitative bipolar argumentation framework applied in multi-agent systems. Different agents in a multi-agent systems have various capabilities, and they contribute in different ways to the system goal. The purpose of this study is to explore approaches of explaining the overall behavior and output from a multi-agent system and enable explainability in the multi-agent systems. By exploring the properties of the quantitative bipolar argumentation framework using some techniques from explainable Artificial Intelligence (AI), the system will generate output with explanations given by the argumentation framework. This thesis gives a general overview of argumentation frameworks and common techniques from explainable AI. The study mainly focuses on the exploration of properties and interactive algorithms of quantitative bipolar argumentation framework. It introduces explanation techniques to the quantitative bipolar argumentation framework. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) application is included in order to present the results of the explanation. / Argumentationsramar är en vanlig teknik inom artificiell intelligens och relaterade områden. Det är ett bra sätt att formalisera, lösa konflikter och hjälpa till med defekta resonemang. I den här avhandlingen diskuteras utforskningen av den kvantitativa bipolära argumentationsramen som tillämpas i fleragentsystem. Olika agenter i ett system med flera agenter har olika kapacitet och bidrar på olika sätt till systemets mål. Syftet med den här studien är att utforska metoder för att förklara det övergripande beteendet och resultatet från ett system med flera agenter och möjliggöra förklarbarhet i systemen med flera agenter. Genom att utforska egenskaperna hos den kvantitativa bipolära argumentationsramen med hjälp av vissa tekniker från förklaringsbara AI kommer systemet att generera utdata med förklaringar som ges av argumentationsramen. Denna avhandling ger en allmän översikt över argumentationsramar och vanliga tekniker från förklaringsbara AI. Studien fokuserar främst på utforskandet av egenskaper och interaktiva algoritmer för det kvantitativa bipolära argumentationsramverket och introducerar tillämpningen av förklaringstekniker på det kvantitativa bipolära argumentationsramverket. En GUI-applikation ingår för att presentera resultaten av förklaringen.

The purpose of this thesis is to gain a better understanding of linguistic representations among young Québec adults between 25 and 35 years old. Few studies have dealt with this subject since the 1990s, and the more recent work has been concerned with future teachers (Remysen, 2002) or high school students (Razafimandimbimanana, 2005). I chose to focus on young Québec adults raised after the Quiet Revolution and the adoption of the Charter of the French Language (1977) and who are not working in a field related to language in order to determine if, on the one hand, linguistic representations have changed since the 1990s and, on the other hand, if the facts of not being a"language professional" and of not being assessed by a learning institution anymore could affect their attitude towards language. Based on a corpus of interviews conducted with 30 young Québec adults living in and around Sherbrooke, this study aims firstly at collecting the opinions of my informants on various themes related to linguistic representations in Québec, i. e. superiority of French from France, the threat of English in Québec, the use of anglicisms, the degeneration of French in Québec, the concept of mistakes and the complexity of written French. Second, I identify the normative criteria revealed in the informants' discourse that are used to assess the French that is spoken in Québec. This identification is based on an argumentative analysis of the epilinguistic discourse in order to shed light on commonplaces, which are clues of what the informants view as being part of the common standards. Based on the criteria I found, in combination with the standards of A.-M. Houdebine's linguistic imaginary, I developed a hierarchy allowing to determine, on the one hand, which criteria most often lead to a conclusion, and on the other hand, which ones are only used as a concession, indicating that they are acknowledged as a common standard but not taken up by the informant. As some commonplaces are not agreed upon in the discourse on language, I analyse the discourse in which these contradictions are found while paying special attention to the scope of the arguments put forward and to the dissociation of concepts, which helps foster a better understanding of these apparent contradictions.The results of this research reveal, among the group of a speakers interviewed, a certain tolerance towards discrepancies from the standard described in reference works as well as a certain indifference regarding the standard coming from France. Moreover, the normative criteria that bear the greatest argumentative weight are criteria associated to the use of the language, not to the standard of reference. This distinction between use and standard is also found in the explanation of contradictions, which means that the informants make a distinction between assessment of their own use of French and assessment of the use of others (for instance using French of France) and between the spoken language and the"ideal" language.The conclusions drawn from the various analyses carried out in this study reveal a greater linguistic security among my informants than among the populations that had been examined in previous studies.

L'essai québécois a longtemps été étudié en regard de ses thématiques, en particulier celle de la question nationale. Avec la désillusion référendaire de 1980, et l'entrée des femmes dans le domaine de l'essai, d'autres avenues sont explorées, mais peu de recherches s'attardent aux particularités formelles de l'argumentation dans l'essai. En outre, les textes féministes sont rarement comparés aux essais produits par les hommes durant la même période, et ce, même lorsque la réflexion développée concerne des sujets semblables, que ce soit, par exemple, la littérature d'ici et d'ailleurs, le métier d'écrivain ou l'avenir de l'humanité. C'est pourquoi cette thèse propose un corpus mixte composé de douze recueils d'essais parus au Québec entre 1977 et 1997. Il s'agit d'y évaluer comment et pourquoi la rhétorique déployée dans les textes varie - ou ne varie pas - en fonction du sexe de l'essayiste. La période étudiée correspond à un temps fort de la reconfiguration des identités de genre, si bien qu'on peut émettre d'emblée l'hypothèse que les écrits témoigneront d'un certain écart par rapport aux stéréotypes sexués pouvant influer sur les choix discursifs.L'intériorisation des modèles masculins et féminins, prévue par le système de sexe/genre (Rubin), laisse-t-elle tout de même des traces dans l'écriture essayistique ? Si oui, lesquelles ? Si non, quelles sont les principales ressemblances entre les diverses postures argumentatives ? La première partie, qui compte deux chapitres, sert d'assise à la lecture du genre proposée ensuite. Nous y verrons l'évolution de l'autorité discursive avec la postmodernité ainsi que la dynamique binaire à l'oeuvre au sein des principales définitions de l'essai. Divisée en quatre chapitres, la deuxième partie de la thèse révèle un spectre de positions, des plus masculines aux plus féminines (ou inversement), illustrant la complexité du phénomène de la sexuation de la rhétorique dans l'essai québécois. La relation avec le destinataire, les métaphores, l'intergénéricité et la modalisation du discours retiendront notre attention, en tant qu'éléments essentiels de l'argumentation à laquelle a recours tout essayiste littéraire.L'examen minutieux de ces différents aspects permettra de déceler les spécificités de l'essai au féminin, et celles de l'essai au masculin, tout en dévoilant les points de rencontre et les possibilités de dialogues entre les écritures d'essayistes de sexes opposés.

Depuis juin 2004, des dispositions législatives prévues par la Loi sur les normes du travail, visant à contrer le harcèlement psychologique au travail, reconnaissent à tout salarié le droit à un milieu exempt de harcèlement psychologique. Ce recours suscite de nombreuses attentes chez les travailleurs qui identifient, en toute bonne foi, leur souffrance au travail comme étant du harcèlement psychologique. Ces derniers doivent toutefois faire la démonstration que les problèmes vécus au travail s’associent clairement à des manifestations qui sont reconnues comme étant du harcèlement psychologique au sens de la loi. La présente recherche porte sur la rencontre de recevabilité, impliquant le plaignant et l’enquêteur en harcèlement psychologique de la Commission des normes du travail. Cette rencontre, qui amorce le processus du traitement de la plainte pour harcèlement psychologique, met en lumière des enjeux argumentatifs qui sont au cœur de nos préoccupations; d’une part, nous retrouvons un plaignant qui met tout en œuvre pour convaincre l’enquêteur du bien-fondé de sa démarche et, d’autre part, un professionnel qui a la responsabilité de conclure sur la nature des manifestations dénoncées par la possible victime. Le premier chapitre présente les éléments aidant à comprendre l’objet de la recherche et la perspective choisie. Par la suite, est décrit le cadre théorique de la recherche qui intègre la réflexion critique, soutenue par la philosophie et la sociologie. Au troisième chapitre, nous présentons la démarche de recherche appuyée sur une méthodologie pouvant répondre au besoin d’une meilleure compréhension des interactions en présence, soit l’analyse de conversation (Conversation Analysis). Le quatrième chapitre présente les résultats de la recherche basés sur la transcription attentive de l’enregistrement audio de quatre entrevues de recevabilité. Finalement, l’analyse des résultats permet de soutenir notre thèse sur la portée argumentative du récit de la plainte et de son impact sur l’entrevue. Trois stratégies argumentatives communes aux entrevues se révèlent : on observe la prudence de l’enquêteur, le souci du plaignant de présenter un ethos favorable et l’appel à l’émotion. Nous concluons ce chapitre en suggérant des pistes de réflexion et d’intervention pertinentes pour l’intervention spécifique de l’enquête en matière de harcèlement psychologique.