Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk‐focused Socio‐scientific Issue

TLDR

The study investigates how students reason about a controversial socio‑scientific issue, focusing on the arguments they use in decision‑making and the interaction between knowledge and personal values. Twenty‑two Norwegian science‑class students were interviewed about local power‑line construction and its potential childhood leukaemia risk. Five main argument types—relative risk, precautionary, uncertainty, small risk, and pros‑and‑cons—were identified, each linked to specific information and values, illustrating that students draw on both scientific and non‑scientific knowledge and suggesting implications for teaching models that foster thoughtful socio‑scientific decision‑making.

Abstract

This paper reports a qualitative study on students' informal reasoning on a controversial socio‐scientific issue. Twenty‐two students from four science classes in Norway were interviewed about the local construction of new power lines and the possible increased risk of childhood leukaemia. The focus in the study is on what arguments the students employ when asked about their decision‐making and the interplay between knowledge and personal values. Five different types of main arguments are identified: the relative risk argument, the precautionary argument, the uncertainty argument, the small risk argument, and the pros and cons argument. These arguments are presented through case studies, and crucial information and values are identified for each argument. The students made use of a range of both scientific and non‐scientific knowledge. The findings are discussed in relation to possible consequences for teaching models aimed at increasing students' ability to make thoughtful decisions on socio‐scientific issues.