Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9257-y

Educational Configurations for Teaching Environmental

Socioscientific Issues Within The Perspective
of Sustainability

Jean Simonneaux & Laurence Simonneaux

Published online: 13 October 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Education for Sustainability has become an institutional requirement in many

countries. It takes many forms that can integrate the teaching of environmental Socioscientific
Issues (SSIs). In this context, we present the French notion of Socially Acute Questions (SAQs).
We develop a theoretical frame to analyse educational configurations applied to the teaching of
SAQs within the perspective of sustainability. This frame is built with a reference to a matrix
integrating attributes of knowledge (universal, plural, engaged or contextualised), teachers’
epistemological postures (scientism, utilitarianism, skepticsm or relativism) and various
didactic strategies (doctrinal, problematizing, critical or pragmatic). To illustrate this frame,
three situations of teaching-learning are compared.

Keywords Educational configurations . Education for sustainability . Socially acute

questions . Socioscientific issues

Introduction

Education for sustainable development (ESD) has been widespread in the French education
system since 2007. In other countries, the term education for sustainability is used. In this
text, we will use this latter term. In literature, research on Education for Sustainability (EfS)
has developed in many directions: epistemological analysis of the ‘paradoxical compound
policy slogan’ of Sustainable development (Stables 1996), analysis of the differences and
similarities between environmental education (EE) and EfS (McKeown and Hopkins 2003),
discussion on the need for an interdisciplinary and complex approach (Colucci Gray et al.
2006; Summers et al. 2005) or for a holistic approach (Stables and Scott 2002), contribution
of ESD to citizenship education and critical thinking (Gil-Pérez and Vilches 2005; Hicks
1996; Ernst and Monroe 2004). Some studies examine students’ conceptions or experiences
(Walshe 2008; Shephard et al. 2009; Barraza and Robottom 2008); others are interested in
the students’ expectations for the future (Hicks and Holden 2007). In this paper, we focus

J. Simonneaux (*) : L. Simonneaux

UMR EFTS, ENFA, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France
e-mail: jean.simonneaux@educagri.fr
76 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

on the curriculum and teaching practices. EfS is multi-form; a wide variety of teaching-
learning contexts can be found. These contexts have different goals and are based on
different interpretations of the notion of Sustainable Development (SD). They rely more or
less on environmental SocioScientific Issues (SSIs). The notion of SD, it itself, can be
considered as a SSI.
To analyse the education for sustainability, we identify various educational config-
urations which characterize the stakes chosen by the teachers. We define these
configurations with a reference to a matrix integrating attributes of knowledge, teachers’
epistemological postures and various didactic strategies:
(i) The attributes of knowledge provided by schools or universities are established
depending, in particular, on how this knowledge has been developed. The knowledge
involved in sustainability can be conceived as universal, plural, engaged or
contextualized.
(ii) Every teacher’s epistemological posture depends on the aim he/she attributes to
science. The postures can be scientist, utilitarian, sceptical or relativist.
(iii) The didactic strategies are characterized by educational purposes, by various
educational scenarios and the importance assigned to values. A strategy is
characterized by a goal and the means to achieve it. The strategies may be doctrinal,
problematic, critical and pragmatic (Simonneaux 2010).
Are some educational configurations essential or unavoidable or on the contrary should
they be avoided in order to achieve a goal of scientific citizenship in the perspective of
sustainability? We consider that the use of SAQs in ESD gives priority to certain
educational configurations.
In English language literature, the notion of SSI is well known whereas the notion of
Questions Socialement Vives (Socially Acute Questions (SAQs) in English) is used in the
French speaking world. The idea of SAQ is maybe more proactive than the idea of SSI
because it challenges students to consider the acuteness of such issues.
Before developing the theoretical frame, we will present the French notion of Questions
Socialement Vives (SAQ in English) and particularly the SAQ of Sustainable Development.
We are concerned with environmental SAQs which are in line with EfS. We consider
environmental SAQs to be complex questions, situated in the field of post normal science
(Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993). In the risk society (Beck 1986), they contribute to the
modification in the relationship between science and society. Teaching SAQs addresses the
way in which teachers become involved oscillating between teaching imposed choices, i.e.
essential eco-gestures,1 and fostering critical thinking to stimulate the justification of
individual and collective decisions. Teachers faced with the institutional injunction of EfS,
become involved in different ways depending on whether they perceive sustainable
development as an SAQ bearing a liberal ideology or whether they defend “strong”
sustainability or de-growth.
Legardez and Simonneaux (2006) have defined the term “Questions Socialement Vives”,
in English “Socially Acute Questions” (SAQ). SAQs are controversial and they have social
implications. SAQs are the object of controversies between specialists from different
disciplinary fields or between experts from associated professional fields. SAQs challenge
social practices and reflect social representations and value systems that society believes it

1
A citizen has a certain number of duties regarding the environment and nature: he turns off lights, he sorts
his waste, he saves paper, etc. These daily environmentally friendly gestures are called eco-gestures.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 77

is important to discuss. Consequently they have the potential for initiating debate in the
classroom.
SAQs have, in common with SSIs, the potential to be open-ended questions that involve
ill-structured problems; they integrate knowledge in the humanities and sciences; they are
complex and raise uncertainties. Zeidler et al. (2005) showed that SSI education was a
better means of integrating the Nature of Science, arguments, values and moral judgments
than the STS movement. The SAQ approach emphasizes the degree of acuteness of the
issue in the world of research and / or society. The teaching of SAQs contributes to
scientific literacy and integrates risk analysis, analysis of the patterns of political and
economic governance, decision-making and action as central features. Given the acuteness
of the issues, the risk of teaching SAQs is more or less great, and teachers are more or less
likely to heat up or to cool down the questions. The STS movement was revisited by
Hodson (2003) who integrated the environmental dimension (E). Hodson argued in favour
of developing the teaching of STSE interactions in order to foster student involvement in
decision-making. The SAQ approach defends the same aim.
The notion of Sustainable Development emerged in the political sphere (solidarity
between generations, environmental conservation, optimal distribution, etc.) by generating
trends and the principles for action summarized in the United Nations’ Agenda 21.2 The
socio-political dimension leads therefore to a consideration of the modes of governance.
Criticism of SD partly concerns the discrepancy between the political principles presented
and the effectiveness of the actions implemented. The concept of SD is in itself an SAQ.
SD has been denounced as a political approach “to continue producing while polluting
more slowly but for a longer period of time” following the principles of green capitalism.
Let us quickly summarise the controversy surrounding SD. In particular we have the
advocates of growth against the supporters of de-growth. In economic terms, the dominant
paradigm has long been that it is impossible to separate development—considered to be the
pursuit of well-being—from growth. The idea that progress is synonymous with
development no longer goes without saying in the shadow of the environmental crises
and the persistence of social and economic inequalities in the world.
To Berr and Harribey (2005) and Ariès (2010), growth is inapplicable in the long term;
only sustainable de-growth can be considered. Supporters of an ecological economy are
challenging the primacy of economics in favour of environmental criteria. De-growth is
designed to benefit the poorest, to help them meet their basic needs (food, housing, education)
but this stance calls our current lifestyles into question by shifting the emphasis from speed,
performance, competition, to solidarity and a free of charge basis. Social relations are thus
reconsidered and are no longer determined by economic primacy (Ariès 2010). These two
world views clash. There are other questions concerning the links between the environment
and growth. For instance, the links between growth and pollution give rise to controversies
which have not yet been settled. The so-called “Kuznets” curve shows that after deterioration
due to growth, new investment and technical progress lead to a reduction in pollution. The
findings of the Kuznets curve come into conflict with the position advocated in the Meadow
(1972 [1973]) report where pollution is revealed to be an increasing function of economic
growth. There are many SAQs linked to SD issues which fall into the sphere of agriculture
and food, transport, waste processing, etc. SD has been subjected to various interpretations
and even to mercantile and political “hijackings”. The notion of sustainability can now be
classed as “weak sustainability” or “strong sustainability”. “Weak sustainability” is not
concerned about the form in which the stocks of capital (human made, natural and human) are

2
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/index.shtml
78 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

passed to future generations. The “strong sustainability” approach requires that the stocks of
natural capital should not decrease over-time. This is mainly because natural capital,
associated with ecological assets, is non-substitutable, for instance biological diversity, the
ozone layer, and the carbon cycle (Pearce et al. 1994). We envisage the teaching of
environmental SAQs within the perspective of strong sustainability.

A Theoretical Framework for Educational Configurations

The teaching of environmental SAQs can be organised using various educational

configurations which integrate, to a greater or lesser extent, the complexity of the
knowledge involved and the developments in the relationship between science and society.
The variety of configurations depends on the epistemological postures of the teachers, who
mobilize specific knowledge when elaborating their didactic strategies. We based our
characterization of this knowledge and these epistemological postures on literature in
epistemology and in sociology of the sciences. The different didactic strategies stem
partially from Tozzi’s (2001) work on philosophy teaching.

Attributes of Knowledge

The study of SAQs forces us to transcend disciplinary divisions, particularly between

“hard” science and human science. When examining the sciences, we realise that many
characteristics go beyond the boundaries of the disciplinary divisions these divisions being
as much the result of a social construction as of epistemological specificities. SAQs also
question the foundations of science and the rationalist utopia according to which reason and
truth emerge from the confrontation of ideas. Thus, for Beck (1986/2001) we must go
beyond the “successive attempts to rescue the “underlying rationality” of scientific
knowledge” (p. 360) implemented whenever science is confronted with failure or adverse
effects.
Based on previous work in epistemology, we have put knowledge into four categories.
The knowledge involved in questions relative to sustainability can be conceived as
universal, plural, engaged or contextualized. The methods of knowledge elaboration can be
distinguished (I) using models based on a hypothetical-deductive approach with a view
towards constructing a truth which claims to be universal, (II) by the co-existence of several
paradigms thus offering a plurality of models, (III) by analyzing the controversies,
uncertainties and risks related to the knowledge using socio-epistemological investigation
and finally (IV) by observing empirical data within a given context. This differentiation of
knowledge not only originates in the different methods used to develop it, but also in the
selected approaches, in the mobilisation of different producers of knowledge and in the
varying ways in which values are, or are not, expressed and integrated.
We can identify four conceptions of knowledge and knowing which have specific
attributes:

– Universal knowledge is Truth. In this framework, science produces a model of how the
world works. This model is dominant in the experimental sciences; it validates the
separation between basic science and applied science or between science and
technology. When determining the evidence, priority is given to mathematical and
quantitative methods. Scientific breakthroughs are made through opposition, by the
emergence of a new theory which challenges the previous one.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 79

– In the case of plural knowledge several paradigms can exist simultaneously within a
scientific field, new theories do not systematically negate previous theories. The fact
that several paradigms are recognized, distances the notion of truth. Science produces
models that attempt to explain what is real without merging with it. Economic sciences
are characteristic of this type of knowledge: they are marked by the co-existence of
various paradigms (the market, the rationality of the actor, the institutions, etc.).
– Engaged knowledge is characterized by the highlighting of controversies. Uncertain-
ties, possible risks and potential changes in society and in the environment are
examined. Scientific knowledge is not questioned simply in terms of its validity, but
also in terms of the changes it induces or could induce. Many different actors take part
in scientific debates whether they are scientists, citizens, philosophers, whistleblowers
etc. The sociology of controversies helps to render this engaged knowledge more
comprehensible through the analysis of the sets of arguments and the sets of actors
involved (Chateauraynaud 2004). It consists of conducting a socio-epistemological
investigation into the knowledge in order to identify the uncertainties and risks which
stimulate reflexivity in the sciences (Beck 1986). The values held by the different
stakeholders are clarified.
– Contextualised knowledge considers a scientific production in a given local context
concentrating on the procedure or on empirical verifications. Its validity is linked to a
specific situation. This knowledge is for the most part interdisciplinary integrating local
knowledge which is sometimes described as a-disciplinary. Local stakeholders also
produce knowledge. Stengers (1993) refers to this as «field science». Field science is
not concerned with demonstration or proof but with the continuous confrontation with
reality, which may possibly contradict but more often modify, improve or complete
existing theories or models. The “field” has specific and very different characteristics to
a theoretical construction; it pre-exists, is only relatively sound and is the support for
interdisciplinary practices.
By way of illustration, agronomy is a science which has been rocked by the emergence
of SD. The knowledge related to it can fall into different categories according to different
accepted meanings. A universal, fundamentalist agronomy continues to seek Laws. At the
same time agronomy has revealed its plurality, its poly-paradigmatic nature. Some research
teams are interested in a molecular, chemical, biotechnological form of agronomy with a
leaning towards the analytical; whereas other teams, analysing socio-technical aspects, are
trying to understand agriculture from a systemic angle. From an engaged perspective, work
in agronomy points to the risks and uncertainties surrounding, for example, the use of
pesticides or GMOs. Finally, in the search for innovative low-input crop systems, we
observe that farmers, experts and scientists co-construct distributed knowledge that is
contextualized in the territories (Table 1).

Epistemological Postures

Successive crises (Chernobyl, BSE, etc.) have shaken our trust in the sciences and in the
experts. As a result Brunet (2006) opposes two modes of expertise, the “official” authority
expert and the “community” expert, on the basis of the rift between scientific rationality and
social rationality. Expertise is a form of institutionalisation of the sciences which forges the
relationship between science and society. Expertise is a form of instrumentation of the
sciences (Brunet 2006). Expertise is as essential to modern society as it is to the risk
society; it is one of the stages towards the recognition and mediation of the induced effects
80 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

Table 1 Principle attributes of the different categories of knowledge

Universal Plural Engaged Contextualised

Dominant methods Modelling Polyparadigmatic Study of uncertainties Empirical verification

for the elaboration Asymptotic truth and risks
of knowledge Ruptures Reflexive scientifisation
Producers of Scientists Scientists Scientists, Scientists, Experts,
knowledge Whistleblowers, Local actors
citizens, philosophers
Approach preferred Hypothetical-deductive, Construction of Socio-epistemological Observation,
quantitative different models investigation participation
approach
Expression of values Excluded Implicit Integrated and Integrated
explained
Disciplinarisation Monodisciplinary Monodisciplinary Interdisciplinary, A-disciplinary
academic a-disciplinary Interdisciplinary
Examples in Laws in agronomy Systemic and Study of environmental Study of the
agronomy and SD analytic and sanitary impacts functioning of a
agronomy of pesticides specific eco-socio
system
«Consensual» Plural analysis of De-growth notion Analysis of a local
definition of SD, the notion of sustainable solution
development

which are linked to industrialisation; these effects are negative in the case of a risk society
(Table 2).
The diversity of functions that the actors in the education system attribute to the sciences
reveals their epistemological postures,-we have established four categories based on
previous work in epistemology and in the sociology of science.
– The scientistic posture is inspired by Ernest Renan (1890 [1995]). Science is considered
to be essential to progress. Disciplinary and academic construction is the basis of this
posture. The confidence placed in the scientific approach contributes to the sacralisation

Table 2 The two postures of expertise according to Brunet (2006, p. 120)

Model revindicated Expert «between the parties» Expert «stakeholder»

by the expert

Dominant rationality Scientific Social

Principle Professional dissymmetrical Democratic
Symmetrical
Representative of the model Administration, State, elected Associations
representatives
Posture Distant Engaged
Dominant criteria of validation Professional competence The independence of the
stakeholders
Institution of expertise The conclave Plenary session
Form of expression Fact Cause
Vector of expression Science Advocate
Vector of legitimization The peers Parties present
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 81

of science; the researcher is the essential actor. The disciplinary content, and the
way it is divided up, constitutes the basis of all learning of a hierarchical nature,
widespread in schools and academic institutions; learning that is delivered by the
teacher and disciplinary expert down to the student. The teaching of the agronomic
and economic principles of The Green Revolution took on this posture. The Green
Revolution refers to a strategy designed to transform agriculture in developing
countries which is based mainly on the principle of developing intensive farming
methods and the use of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains. In the scientistic
posture, new scientific knowledge in the field of plant breeding has led to
technological innovation and progress.
– Utilitarianism constitutes a second posture. It can be defined as referring to the
utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill. In this case, knowledge takes on meaning through
the actions it helps to produce; the operational dimension is paramount and the value of
knowledge lies in the power to act on reality. Knowledge is considered from a
production angle, as a resource. The institutions in which this knowledge is transmitted
(a business, the market, a vocational training centre, etc.) have a function connected to
production. The expert, engineer or administrator, who makes the right decisions, is the
emblematic figure of this posture which fosters innovation. The teaching of precision
agriculture is an illustration of this posture. Precision farming aims to optimize the
management of a plot of land from an agronomic point of view (e.g. by adapting
cultivation methods as close as possible to the nitrogen requirements of the plant); from
an environmental point of view (e.g. by limiting the leaching of excess nitrogen); from
an economic point of view (e.g. by increasing competitiveness through better
management of nitrogen fertilizers).
– Scepticism constitutes a third posture to which can be linked the works of Habermas
(1987), Beck (1986) and Bourdieu et al. (1968 [2005]). Events, of a more or less
catastrophic impact in relation to the techno-sciences, have shaken our confidence in
scientific progress and the gap between scientists and society is widening. The
sciences produce breakthroughs but also controversies and risks. The scientists’
questions and doubts are no longer confined to research but fuel public debate and
are relayed by the media, citizens associations, etc. Scientific research is guided by
political and economic choices. The educational intentions underlying this posture
will try to promote citizenship training and critical thinking. Teaching on the
potential environmental risks of producing insect-resistant GMOs, illustrates this
epistemological posture.
– Relativism finds its reference in the work of Feyerabend (1979) who considers that
science cannot auto-proclaim itself as a superior form of knowledge because no
universally validated method can be attributed to the sciences. It thus becomes difficult,
or even impossible, to distinguish a scientific approach from any other belief or myth.
Although it may be possible to discuss this position within a philosophical framework,
it seems very difficult to defend within the context of an education system which
describes itself as scientific. Teaching the anthroposophist principles of bio-dynamics
(a method used in organic farming) is a relativist posture. Anthroposophy is a school of
thought and a form of spirituality founded in the early twentieth century by Rudolf
Steiner. According to him, it is a spiritual science; an attempt at studying, experiencing,
and describing spiritual phenomena with the same precision and clarity with which
science both studies and describes the physical world. The use of the term “science” in
connection with this approach has been disputed by proponents of the scientific method
(Table 3).
82 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

Table 3 Characteristics of epistemological postures

Scientism Utilitarianism Scepticism Relativism

Relationship to Sacralisation Relevance of science Science produces All types of

the sciences is linked to its knowledge, thought deserve
effects on the world controversies and attention and can
risks be uttered
Goals attributed Progress, Advice, help with Understanding the An understanding
to sciences rationality decision making, world but scientific of the world
Innovation, reflexivity necessary amongst others
development
Authors Renan Stuart Mill Habermas, Beck, Feyerabend
Bourdieu
Institutions Schools, Business, market, Citizens associations,
Education vocational training media
authorities centres
Chosen Hierarchical and Innovation model, Civic debate, All types
communication academic expertise scientific café
model teaching
Examples of Green Precision agriculture Environmental and Bio-dynamics
application Revolution sanitary
repercussions
of GMOs

Didactic Strategies

Didactic strategies reflect the goals chosen by the school or by the teachers. We have
identified four possible didactic strategies (Simonneaux 2010):

– A doctrinal strategy corresponds to a lecturing posture where the “master” delivers the
teaching content leaving very few opportunities for communicational interaction. This
is done with a view to achieving a clearly defined and identifiable objective. A scenario
based on the presentation of the emergence and relevance of SD is an example of this
type of strategy.
– A problematizing strategy focuses on the students’ cognitive activity. The teacher’s
objective is to arrange things so that the students take an active part in the construction
of an issue and develop a line of reasoning rather than find THE solution. Issues which
emerge within the framework of SAQs and EfS (global warming, energy, transport,
waste management, etc.) cannot be linked to a specific discipline. Social stakes related
to SD, spark an interest in social practices, in contextualizing knowledge thus creating
a specific problematization, articulating spatial (local / global), temporal (present /
future) and social (individual / collective) scales.
– A critical strategy aims at developing a critical sense. The stake is to teach students
how to argue and assess expertise and different stances on complex environmental
issues which carry both uncertainties and risks.
– A pragmatic strategy is based on involving the students in an activity. Project-based
learning falls into this category. The challenge is to stimulate student action. The
students are confronted with real environmental world problems which are not,
generally speaking, symbolic and have not been simplified or remoulded to serve as
“school case studies”. The real life issue is not shown within a theoretical framework
which selects the empirical data.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 83

Table 4 Characteristics of didactic strategies

Doctrinal Problematizing Critical Pragmatic

Educational To know and endorse To construct an To develop critical To foster a type

goals the doctrines presented issue thinking of behaviour
Preferred Stuctured lessons, Simulation, Studies of controversies, Action,
scenarios presentations, the study experimentation, Debates, epistemological participation/
of texts, guided by carrying out disturbances organisation
assessment diagnostics of projets
Aspects Disciplinary knowledge (Inter)disciplinary The state of controversies, (eco-)gestures,
targeted knowledge and argument reasoning, projet
for learning methodologies refutation, empowerment management
Expression Declared or implicit Implicit Multiple, identified and Implicit values
of values neutrality debated

Of course, several strategies can be used in the same teaching situation. Generally, there
will be a dominant strategy. For instance, critical and problematizing strategies can bolster a
dominant pragmatic strategy (Table 4).

Educational Configurations

The notion of educational configuration aims at accounting for the complexity of the
didactic situations by combining the different epistemological statuses given to knowledge,
the epistemological postures adopted by the teachers and the didactic strategies developed.
The educational configuration raises the question of the articulation and coherence between
the epistemological postures and didactic strategies to be adopted. Theoretically, 64
educational configurations are possible, though to avoid any distortion, the epistemological
postures must be consistent with the chosen didactic strategies, the strategies partially
reveal these postures (Fig. 1).

Archetypical Configurations

Several configurations may be considered as archetypical because they are often

represented in the teaching models. By model we refer to the simplified representation of
a given situation, the situation is simplified to make it easier to understand; we do not refer
to a pre-determined model which is designed to be followed.
The hierarchical configuration is the archetype of the dominative, authoritarian
lesson to use the same expression as Scott and Mortimer (2002). The hierachy is defined
by knowledge and by the teacher who is the “authority”. The students have a passive role
in a didactic model based on top-down transmission science / teacher / student. This is a
sort of archetypal caricature of the teaching model which was largely dominant up until
the 1970s.
The problematizing configuration is archetypal of an active pedagogy which associates
the mobilisation of a plural knowledge and a sceptical posture within a problematizing
strategy. In this configuration, the teacher aims to involve the student in the construction of
meaning. The construction of the issue is more important than finding a solution. Teachers /
learners and peer group interactions are encouraged.
The professionalizing configuration is characterized by the predominance of utilitarian-
ism. Knowledge only becomes legitimate in a given context and serves a utilitarian purpose
84 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

Epistemological posture Conceptions of knowledge

Scientism Universal
Utilitarianism Plural
Scepticism Engaged
Relativism Contextualised

Didactic strategy
Doctrinal

Problematizing

Critical

Pragmatic

Fig. 1 The educational configurations

by way of a professional goal. This is the overriding model in vocational training; it is the
pedagogy of “action”. The epistemological posture is utilitarian because the significance of
the knowledge is linked to the orientations and solutions that it helps develop.
The critical configuration targets citizenship, often a priority in the teaching of SAQs.
This configuration should play a part, at least at some stage, during the teaching of
environmental SAQs because it enables learners to pinpoint the stakes and the controversies
involved in the issues.
These archetypical configurations do not in any way exclude other configurations which
must, however, be linked to the educational goals and didactic customs. Whereas certain
configurations appear to be incompatible (a scientist posture and a critical strategy), others
may be considered disturbing or even paradoxical (a doctrinal strategy and a sceptical
posture) (Fig. 2).

Comparative Analysis of Three Contrasting Configurations

To illustrate this framework, we compare three teaching-learning situations related to

environmental SAQs within the perspective of sustainability.
We examined contrasting teaching situations, set up in high schools, and their impact on
the students’ learning (Vidal and Simonneaux 2010; Simonneaux et al. 2010; Simonneaux
& Simonneaux 2009).

Situation A the use of multi-agent modelling and role-playing in the case of conflict
management concerning biodiversity,
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 85

Epistemological posture Conceptions of knowledge

Scientism Universal

Utilitarianism Plural

Scepticism Engaged

Relativism Contextualised

Hierarchical configuration
Didactic strategy
Problématizing configuration Doctrinal

Professional configuration Problematizing

Critical configuration Critical

Pragmatic

Fig. 2 Four archetypical educational configurations

Situation B the implementation of an agenda 213 in a high school,

Situation C the introduction of a succession of epistemological disturbances through the
use of authentic scientific data related to the relationship between food and
environment.

Collecting Data

Within the context of situation A, teachers took part in a week long training course with the
group of ComMod researchers who developed the models for specific territories, the aim
being to help them discover and use different models related to biodiversity management.
Seven experiments were conducted in the classroom.
The following corpuses were recorded and transcribed:
– what the researchers said during the process of training the teachers
– the interdisciplinary sessions set up by the teachers
– what the students said during the role plays / simulation
– the debriefing of teachers and students at the end of each session
– the interviews with the teachers when they were asked about their perceptions of the
relationship between science and society, and on the goals pursued during the session.
In situation B, we recorded and transcribed the interviews with the institution’s project
leader on sustainable development and the interviews with the teachers. We conducted
participant observations during the Steering Committee meetings and observations during

3
Un agenda21 scolaire, sometimes called «green school» is a variation on the scale of a whole school of the
agenda 21 scheme created by the UNO; it defines a programme of educational actions on different themes
(energy, transport, waste, etc…).
86 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

the days of action. Finally, we studied different documents: minutes of meetings, project
reports, internal and external information on the activities.
Based on this data, we identified the following:

– regarding the attributes of knowledge mobilized : the dominant methods used in their
elaboration, the producers of knowledge, the approach which was given priority and
the type of disciplinarisation ;
– regarding the teachers’ epistemological postures: how they relate to the sciences and
what aims they give to the knowledge they mobilize;
– regarding the didactic strategies: the educational goals, the didactic methods and the
expression of values.
In situation C, students were confronted with successive disturbing «evidence». They
had to give written answers to open questionnaires after each disturbing situation and
they participated in debates which were recorded and transcribed. We analysed the
evolution of their reasoning and arguments, with the help of the written answers and
the transcriptions. As we produced ourselves this situation, we could describe the
educational configuration, ie attribute of knowledge mobilised, our epistemological
posture and our didactic strategy.

Presentation of The Three Teaching Situations

Situation A The use of a multi-agent system and of role playing in the case of conflict
management concerning biodiversity.
Since 1996, a group of researchers, from different laboratories, working in the field of
renewable resource management and environmental issues, wanted to go beyond mere
pluridisciplinary juxtaposition in order to consider the stakes involved in such issues for the
multiple actors. Companion modelling aims to help different “knowledge bearers”,
researchers or local actors, to grasp the complexity of socio-environmental realities
subjected to conflict. It gets them to interact with each other by way of role play and
computerised simulations. Companion modelling was originally used as a tool to enable
local actors to understand the way in which their local “territory” or environment functions
in order to foster negotiation (Etienne 2011). This modelling was then tested in classrooms.
Companion modelling is rooted in the multi-agent system theory, a computer system
which seeks to understand different types of behaviour or the autonomous (thinking)
processes in competition with one another. The multi-agent system is a simulation tool
which is adapted to represent complex dynamic systems. The ComMod team associated this
multi-agent system with the Geographical Information Systems and with role playing in
order to create a model and to simulate the dynamics of specific eco-socio systems, i.e. the
way in which different stakeholders manage the resources and elements which form the
heritage of a given territory.
The model is co-constructed by researchers and local stakeholders based on an iterative,
back-and-forth, approach between field (reality) / modelling / simulation / field (reality),
confronting the dynamics of the model with the dynamics existing in the field i.e. in reality.
An example of its application in teaching : “Méjeanjeu”. The Mejeanjeu model simulates
the dynamics of conifer planting in the Causse Méjean² (pine trees can disperse their seeds
all over the territory but their occurrence is more or less frequent depending on the socio-
economic context, the actions of the different stakeholders (in particular local farmers and
foresters) and the evolution of certain elements of natural heritage such as the Clouded
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 87

Apollo (Parnassius mnemosyne),4 the Little Owl (Athene noctua),5 the Stone Curlew
(Burhinus oedicnemus).6 In addition, there is important interaction between farming
activities especially clearing and removing stones from the fields.
The students have to play the role not only of human agents (farmers, breeders, foresters,
naturalists) but also of animal agents (Little Owl). During the first phase, the game
heightens the students’ awareness of the ecological dynamics at play and the interaction
between farming and forestry activities. In the second phase, the students are able to
imagine methods of cooperation or alternative scenarios for managing the given territory in
order to enhance biodiversity conservation. The third phase is a test phase in which each of
the scenarios is run through a computer simulation. These are interdisciplinary sessions led
by a social and economic science teacher and an ecology teacher.
Situation B The implementation of an agenda-21 programme in a high school
Setting up agenda-21 projects in schools has been strongly encouraged by the
ministerial authorities. Guidance on how to integrate SD issues into the different school
subjects is also given in the curricula. Official circulars, explaining how to implement
SD in a school context, have been sent out to help schools and their partners. We
studied the setting up of an agenda-21 in an agricultural high school located in a rural
area at the foot of the Pyrenees in France. The school’s agenda-21 was set up gradually
by the headmaster and his team along with a part-time project leader. External partners,
academic authorities and others, also offered their support. For example, the local
syndicate responsible for processing waste welcomes regular visits from students and
participates in awareness raising activities at the school. Links with local stakeholders
(environmental associations, professional farming organisations…) are widely encour-
aged. The students are involved in these actions during the 2 year period of study to
obtain their qualification.
Educational activities related to agenda-21 are run according to project management
methodology, in stages (awareness raising, implementation, evaluation). There is
therefore a progression linked to the projects set up in the school. These projects are
run collectively involving students and different categories of staff. The actions are
grouped together by theme (biodiversity, waste, transport, energy, water, participatory
democracy). Several actions have been selected and set up on each of the themes. For
example, on the theme of water, a system for collecting rain water has been set up at
the students’ initiative on the farm; cultivation methods have been adapted in order to
limit the amount of farm inputs which are a major source of groundwater pollution. The
students play an active role in the running of the projects; an election is held in all
classes to choose the “eco-delegate”. So-called “non teaching” days are introduced into
the timetable for the whole school. These special days are dedicated to organising these
actions and communicating to the educational community as a whole, about what has
been done. Participatory citizenship is asserted and associated with the principles of
sustainability which justify setting up this agenda-21.
This agenda-21 is implemented both outside the classroom—for example, actions aimed
at reducing packaging and sorting canteen waste or car-sharing schemes—and during
mostly interdisciplinary teaching sessions related to field activities (e.g. agri-environmental
diagnosis and the promotion of local food products).

4
protected species of butterfly
5
small bird of prey
6
a wader
88 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

The students and the educational community can act positively upon their environment.
The high school becomes an area where things are “possible”, the environment is a resource
and is no longer viewed as an environment consisting solely of constraints and degradation
(Simonneaux et al. 2010).
Situation C Constructing epistemological doubt on the relationship between food and the
environment
In literature, debate is considered a very valuable method for dealing with SSIs.
However, the use of didactic situations which focus on confronting students with
disturbing “evidence”, seems, to us, to play an important role in the nurturing of
epistemic questioning. This “evidence” may be based on (more or less consolidated)
scientific knowledge. Emphasis is placed on the difficulties students encounter when
evaluating knowledge and “evidence” in science (Jiménez-Aleixandre 2008; Sandoval
and Millwood 2005).
During the course of this situation, we prepared a few activities which included
unexpected turns of event or «coups de théâtre» (Tiberghien et al. 2007) using:

a) a ranking of the activities linked to providing food, according to their contribution to

greenhouse gas emissions: Students expressed a general tendency to overestimate the
“polluting” effects of distribution and processing based on the idea that activities are
carried out by industrialists and big companies who are “major” polluters. Household
activities (heating, refrigerating….) are underestimated
b) a presentation of “surprising” data on the environmental impact of the different aspects
of a kilo of bought vegetables: The students are required to answer questions about the
environmental impact of the functional units involved in buying a kilo of vegetables.
Students are surprised by the score for organic agriculture and the use of glass for
packaging. To summarise, they deduced from these results that they should shop at the
local market for fresh vegetables grown locally, cultivated in the open field by way of
an integrated farming system and packaged in plastic.
c) a comparison of the regional and global supply chains for lamb, in terms of final
energy consumption: At this stage, students have experienced several epistemo-
logical disturbances by being confronted with data opposed to their “common
sense” or to media coverage of environmental questions. So, when they are asked
to justify which production-processing-distribution chain is the least costly in terms
of final energy: lamb produced “locally” or New Zealand lamb, they hesitate in
giving the answer that has always seemed the most obvious to them: New Zealand
lamb is more costly in terms of final energy consumption! They are worried about
getting another surprise and this encourages them to study the question more
closely, scrutinizing the documents provided. These results run counter to the very
widespread idea that locally produced products consume less energy (Schlich et al.
2006).
d) a presentation of the scientific controversy surrounding the results analysed previously:
Previous results sparked a heated debate among scientists and ecologists in Germany.
They questioned their validity as well as the way in which they had been interpreted
and presented to the public. Other researchers attacked the publication in a letter to the
editor. The presentation of this controversy at the end of the strategy led the students to
use critical thinking of an epistemological nature. They realised the impact of the
choice of indicators used to demonstrate results and that this choice may betray
political orientations.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 89

Comparison of The Three Configurations

In situation A, multi-agent modelling, the combined analysis of the researchers’ discourse

and the publications on their research allowed us to determine the attributes of knowledge.
We return to these elements in the presentation of situation A (see Collecting Data).
The teachers’ discourse during the debriefing sessions on one hand and the interviews on
the other gave us an insight into their epistemological postures. Observation of the didactic
sessions and the interviews about their educational aims gave us an indication of their
didactic strategies.
Concerning the attributes of knowledge, the knowledge is contextualised in relation to a
given territory, to the stakeholders and to an issue in the sphere of territorial management.
Knowledge is developed by the ComMod research group, “field scientists” to quote
Stengers, with the participation of the local stakeholders. The knowledge is distributed.
Teachers, who have experimented with it, attribute two objectives to companion
modelling: 1. to foster an understanding of how a socio-economic system develops 2. to
raise awareness of the importance of cooperation and negotiation between stakeholders
within the framework of controversial eco-socio systems. The teachers are in line with a
utilitarian epistemological posture, the goal they attribute to modelling is to provide help
when making an informed decision, a decision supported by expertise.
A problematizing strategy is used: the didactic scenario is based on a computer
simulation of the development of an eco-socio-system. The strategy targets the learning of
interdisciplinary and methodological knowledge. The students must piece together the
question of biodiversity management in a given territory. The values linked to this
management are not explained.
In situation B, the school’s agenda-21, the interdisciplinary knowledge is contextualised;
it is developed by the pupils, the teachers, experts and local stakeholders within the context
of the school and its territory. The environmental and social values of sustainable
development are integrated and openly displayed.
The epistemological posture here is utilitarian. Knowledge is mobilized to have an effect
on the local situation, if possible to support innovation. Partnerships are developed with
different institutions (local and regional authorities, professional agricultural organisations).
A pragmatic strategy is dominant. The students are involved in running projects which
aim to change behaviour towards the environment. A critical strategy is also occasionally
implemented with a view to developing the students’ sense of eco-citizenship.
In situation C, based on epistemological disturbances, the knowledge presented is
engaged in that it favours an interdisciplinary approach to the question involving the
necessary reflexivity on the knowledge produced. The social and axiological dimensions
are integrated into the presentation of the controversy which is linked to the last piece of
research presented.
A sceptical epistemelogical posture guides the educational configuration. The methods
and indicators used in the different studies presented, are debated along with their social
implications (Table 5).
The “epistemological disturbances” situation may be considered as a stimulating SAQ
configuration adapted to EfS in that it is the situation that mobilizes the controversies to the
maximum, in the knowledge used as a reference, in the epistemological postures which
foster debate and in the didactic strategy which aims at highlighting the uncertainties. The
educational configuration is organized in such a way that the scientific acuteness is taken as
a reference and presented to the class; the students are faced with a whole series of
questions. Learning certainly results from this type of configuration but it is built upon new
90 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

Table 5 Comparison of the three teaching situations

Multi-agent modelling Agenda21 Epistemological disturbances

Knowledge attribute Contextualised Contextualised Engaged

Dominant method for Collection and
the elaboration of modelling of
knowledge empirical data
Producers of knowledge Scientists & professionals
Approach Observation / participation
Disciplinarisation Interdisciplinary
Epistemological posture Utilitarianism
Relationship to the Relevance of the
sciences sciences depends on
their applicability
Goals of the sciences Advice, help with
decision-making
Didactic strategy Problematizing
Educational goals To construct an issue
in a complex situation
Didactic methods Simulation, Role- playing
Expression of values Implicit
Planification of actions
Students and teachers
Local stakeholders, experts
Observation / participation
Interdisciplinary
Utilitarianism
Relevance of the
sciences depends on
their applicability
Local actions,
supporting innovation
Pragmatic, critical
To encourage a
particular form of
behaviour
Running projects
Implicit
Collection of empirical data
Use of this data in the
construction of
controversies
Scientists and researchers
working in education
Socio-epistemological
investigation
Interdisciplinary
Skepticism
Scientific methodologies
and conclusions are
debatable
Development of relexivity
Critical
To identify the reasoning
behind the construction
of knowledge
Epistemological disturbances
based on scientific results,
the study of controversies,
debate
Debated

questions which arise during the course of the strategy rather than upon solutions to the
problems discussed. This configuration can be disturbing. This situation is now being used
in high schools outside the confines of our experiment. One teacher declared using this
strategy with students who were beginning to have well-established, maybe too well-
established, conceptions of science.
At the outset, the «multi-agent modelling» situation is equally disturbing for the students
until they are able to understand, at least broadly speaking, the reasoning behind the model.
The eco-socio system model is not handed to them on a plate; it is up to them to discover it
by testing different actions during the course of the game. This leads them to develop their
questioning on biodiversity management within a more complex context integrating the
environmental but also social and economic constraints. The definition of an interdisci-
plinary scenario is essential here in the construction of this complexity which still has to
take several vagaries into account (especially concerning the climate) and above all raise
awareness in terms of the interaction between the local environment and the stakeholders.
This situation results in the question becoming more complex but it does help with
decision-making even though there is no ideal solution to the problem in hand.
The «agenda-21» situation is set up around and for action. Doing is learning; project-
based learning is at the heart of this educational method. This pragmatic leaning tends to
“cool down” the acuteness of the questions which may be raised, giving priority to
innovative actions because learning is assessed in terms of the way the project is run and
the results rather than in terms of analyzing the controversies and the scientific
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 91

uncertainties. It should be noted that the didactic action here is spread over a longer time
span (two years) than in the other two configurations.
The “multi agent modelling” situation corresponds to an educational configuration
which aims at getting students involved in situated problematization; the “agenda 21”
situation corresponds to an educational configuration trying to engage students in action
and the “epistemological disturbances” situation corresponds to an educational configura-
tion trying to increase students’ critical thinking. Of course, we are not claiming to describe
all the potential educational configurations (Fig. 3).

Implications

These three types of configuration are coherent and complementary. Each one adds specific
elements from an EfS perspective. However, they may generate different points of view on
the relationship between science and society.
The reasoning behind EfS should even encourage this didactic diversity because it
allows the SAQs to be «cooled down» or «heated up» at different stages of the curriculum.
It seems to us that the critical thinking configuration should be considered as a must for
scientific citizenship training although this does not mean it is the only foreseeable form.
The utilitarian epistemological posture of the other two configurations may tend to mask
the controversial and uncertain nature of science. Both the situated problematization and
the action configurations show, admittedly, that there is no single solution that can be
applied generally when faced with the challenges of sustainability, but they do suggest that
current uncertainty could be lifted when a scientific answer is found to the current
questions. But, we should abandon the idea that scientific progress will enable us to find a
solution to everything, for this corresponds to a techno-scientific line of reasoning based on
the belief that technoscience will resolve all our current problems. The decisions we take
will always harbour some aspect of uncertainty. Scientific progress will raise new questions.
The critical thinking configuration cannot be avoided if the aim is to get students to accept

Epistemological posture Conceptions of knowledge

Scientism Universal
Utilitarianism Plural
Scepticism Engaged
Relativism Contextualised

Configuration A :
Situated problematization Didactic strategy
Configuration B : Action Doctrinal

Configuration C : Critical thinking Problematizing

Critical

Pragmatic

Fig. 3 Comparison of the educational configurations

92 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

the existence of this uncertainty while simultaneously showing them the necessity for
scientific enlightenment. Uncertainty has just added itself to the vagaries science has
already pinpointed as being present in all decisions concerning the future. It is a path which
must be taken to avoid getting caught up in a form of relativism which could emerge in
reaction to blind scientism.

Discussion and Conclusion

Teaching EfS through SAQs leads to the combination of both science education and
political education. In the context of SSIs, Levinson (2010) proposes four frameworks for
describing democratic participation in schools: deficit democracy, deliberative democracy,
science education as praxis and science education for conflict and dissent. The last two
“present more radical programmes but reflect tensions with the dominant discourse of
scientific literacy and citizenship as reflected in school curricula. To operationalise the
aspects of democratic participation, teachers need to make explicit the role of scientific
knowledge and decision-making within each framework” (p.69). Science education as
praxis implies “active and egalitarian participation to enhance change which might assume
political literacy” (p.83), while in science education for dissent and conflict “political
understanding and action for change are foregrounded” (p.84).
In his typology, Levinson characterises the epistemology attached to each framework. In
the deficit framework, science is the corpus of knowledge; in the deliberative framework,
science is understood to be uncertain and fallible; in the science education as praxis
framework, knowledge is situated and in the dissent and conflict framework, what is known
is contextualised by socio-political concerns. Our approach and Levinson’s have certain
points in common but also differ. Levinson bases his categorisation, in particular, on the
epistemological and pedagogical aspects and the implications for democratic participation.
By analysing the attributes of knowledge and didactic strategies, we are also concerned
with the epistemological and pedagogical aspects of the educational configurations linked
to EfS. In the critical thinking configuration, the scientific results are called into question,
in the action and the situated problematization configurations, knowledge is contextualised
and distributed. We distinguish ourselves in that we focus our attention on the
epistemological postures and integrate the political aspect to a lesser extent. The action
configuration comes closer to the science education as praxis framework, the critical
thinking configuration to the deliberative framework and the situated problematization
configuration would be located at the interface of the deliberative and science education as
praxis frameworks.
Whether coming from epistemological, sociological or anthropological spheres, more
and more voices are being raised to highlight the way in which social and economic factors
interweave with scientific activity (Beck 1986; Latour 1989; Stengers 1993). This shift in
perspective can be found in post normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) which
legitimizes post normal education and within which we situate SAQs.
Critical reflexivity is essential to citizenship education. The stake lies in scientific
literacy which leads also to political literacy (Levinson 2010). This results in the need to
move towards a “critical-constructivist» pedagogical paradigm (Tutiaux-Guillon 2008). It is
essential to get across how knowledge can be put to the service of personal interests if we
assert a democratic way of functioning. The question of knowledge is a question of society
and we cannot ignore its social and political dimensions. Recognizing how science works
leads to consider other stakes and other forms of teaching science. Teaching SAQs by going
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94 93

beyond disciplinary divisions and by questioning traditional didactic methods is an

illustration of the transition towards post normal education.
In post normal education it does not suffice to learn in order to understand. The stake is
to encourage participation and action in the scientific activity. Science has a limited and
temporary validity which is marked by social interactions; therefore we need to consider
using a different model for its appropriation than that of downward transmission; a model
which gives priority to more active and participatory methods.
The goal is to get the students to take an active part in the scientific process which
cannot be separated from the social process. Teaching SAQs falls in line with this aim to
question the world around us as does teaching through inquiry (Ladage and Chevallard
2010). Teaching SAQs incorporates procognition, as opposed to retrocognition, i.e. the
study of stabilized scientific “Works”, using conventional teaching methods (Ladage and
Chevallard 2010). Educational configurations can be seen as a tool for understanding these
educational shifts. They aim to reunite teacher, scientist and social actor to form the science
educator. Within the scope of post normal education, critical thinking configurations appear
to us to be fundamental if we want school to be a place for attaining scientific and political
literacy.

References

Ariès, P. (2010). La simplicité volontaire contre le mythe de l’abondance. Paris: La Découverte.

Barraza, L., & Robottom, I. (2008). Gaining Representations of Children’s and Adults’ Constructions of
Sustainability Issues. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 179–191.
Beck, U. (1986). La société du risque, sur la voie d’une autre modernité. (Paris: Flammarion, traduction
française 2001)
Berr, E., & Harribey, J.-M. (2005). Le concept de développement en débat, Économies et Sociétés,
Développement, croissance et progrès, 43(3), 463–476
Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J.-Cl., & Passeron, J.-Cl. (1968 [2005]). Le métier de sociologue, 5ème édition.
Paris: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brunet, P. (2006). L’expert en technosciences: figure «critique» ou «gestionnaire» de la civilisation
industrielle contemporaine? (in Annick Jacq, Janine Guespin-Michel (ed.), Le vivant, entre science et
marché, une démocratie à inventer, Paris: Syllepse, p. 99–125)
Chateauraynaud, F. (2004). La croyance et l’enquête. Aux sources du pragmatisme. Raisons Pratiques, 15,
167–194.
Colucci Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability
literacy. Science Education, 90(2), 227–252.
Ernst, J. A., & Monroe, M. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on students’ critical
thinking skills and disposition toward critical thinking. Environmental Education Research, 10(4),
507–522.
Etienne, M. (2011). Companion Modelling, A Participatory Approach Supporting Sustainable Development,
Versailles, France : editions Quæ.
Feyerabend P (1979) Contre la méthode. (trad. Against Method (1975), Paris: Éditions du Seuil)
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures, 7(25), 739–755.
Gil-Pérez, D., & Vilches, A. (2005). The contribution of science and technological education to citizens’
culture. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(2), 253–263.
Habermas, J. (1987). Théorie de l’agir communicationnel, Tome 1: Rationnalité de l’agir et rationalisation de
la société, Paris: Fayard
Hicks, D. (1996). Envisioning the Future: the challenge for environmental educators. Environmental
Education Research, 2(1), 101–108.
Hicks, D., & Holden, C. (2007). Remembering the future: what do children think? Environmental Education
Research, 13(4), 501–512.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
94 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:75–94

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P.

Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based
research (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ladage, C., & Chevallard, Y. (2010). La pédagogie de l’enquête dans l’éducation au développement durable.
(paper presented «Éducation au développement durable et à la biodiversité », IUT de Provence, Digne
les Bains, 20–22 octobre 2010)
Latour, B. (1989). La science en action. Paris: La Découverte.
Legardez, A. & Simonneaux, L. (2006). L’école à l’épreuve de l’actualité- Enseigner les questions
socialement vives, (ESF (ed), Paris)
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: an uneasy congruence? Studies in
Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
McKeown, R., & Hopkins, C. A. (2003). EE ≠ ESD: Diffusing the Worry. Environmental Education
Research, 9(1), 117–128.
Meadow Report (1972 [1973]). Halte à la croissance. Paris: Fayard.
Pearce, D. W., Atkinson, G. D., & Dubourg, W. R. (1994). The economics of sustainable development.
Annual Revew of Energy and the Environment, 19, 457–74.
Renan, E., (1890 [1995]). L’Avenir de la science. Paris: Flammarion.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific
explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Schlich, E., Biegler, I., Hardtert, B., Luz, M., Schröder, S., Schroeber, J., & Winnebeck, S. (2006). La
consommation d’énergie finale de différents produits alimentaires: un essai de comparaison. Courrier de
l’environnement de l’INRA, n. 53, pp 111–120.
Scott P. & Mortimer E. (2002). Discursive activity on the social plane of high school science classroom: a
tool for analysing and planning teaching interactions. Communication AERA, annual meeting, New
Orleans.
Shephard, K., Mann, S., Smith, N., & Deaker, L. (2009) Customising educational approaches to the needs of
students: but how well do we know our students’ needs?, (in The Student Experience, Proceedings of the
32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Darwin, 6–9 July 2009: pp 379–387)
Simonneaux, J., (2010) (in press). Les controverses sur le développement durable à l’épreuve d’une
perspective éducative (in B. Bader et L. Sauvé Education, environnement et développement durable :
vers une éducation critique, Presses Université Laval, Québec).
Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). À la croisée des questions socialement vives et du développement
durable: étude de la relation alimentation-environnement avec des enseignant(e)s. Didaskalia, 34, 67–
104.
Simonneaux, J, Léna J-Y, Jeunier, B., Chalmeau, R., & Julien, M. (2010). Sustainability: attitudes and
conceptions of pupils and adults during the implementation of an agenda-21. (paper presented at 8th
Conference of european researchers in didactics of biology, ERIDOB, Braga, Portugal)
Stables, A. (1996). Paradox in educational policy slogans: evaluating equal opportunities in subject choice.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(2), 159–167.
Stables, A., & Scott, W. A. H. (2002). The quest for holism in education for sustainable development.
Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 53–60.
Stengers, I. (1993). L’invention des sciences modernes, ((ré-édition Flammarion, 1995) Paris: La Découverte)
Summers, M., Childs, A., & Corney, G. (2005). Education for sustainable development in initial teacher
training: issues for interdisciplinary collaboration. Environmental Education Research, 11(5), 623–647.
Tiberghien A., Malkoun, L., Buty, Ch., Souassy N. & Mortimer, E. (2007). Analyse des savoirs en jeu
en classe de physique à différentes échelles de temps (in G. Sensevy & A. Mercier (dir.) Agir
Ensemble—L’action didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves. pp 97–122. Presses
Universitaires de Rennes)
Tozzi, M. (2001). La transposition didactique, Diotime, 11, http://www.educ-revues.fr/Diotime/affichagedocument.
aspx?iddoc=38670&pos=709
Tutiaux-Guillon, N. (2008). Interpréter la stabilité d'une discipline scolaire : l'histoire-géographie dans le
secondaire français, (in François Audigier et Nicole Tutiaux-Guillon, Compétences et contenus, pp 117–
146, Bruxelles: De Boeck Université)
Vidal, M. & Simonneaux, L. (2010). Using companion modelling on authentic territories in the teaching of
biodiversity. (paper presented at 8th Conference of european researchers in didactics of biology,
ERIDOB, Braga, Portugal)
Walshe, N. (2008). Understanding students’ conceptions of sustainability. Environmental Education
Research, 14(5), 537–558.
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.