Exploring Secondary Students’ Arguments in the Context of Socio-scientific Issues

Abstract

This study examines Turkish secondary school students’ informal reasoning in the context of responding to three dilemmas on socio-scientific issues (SSI). A qualitative methodology was adopted to attain a deeper understanding of the students’ informal reasoning. Data collection involved having the students respond in writing to two of the three dilemmas followed by group interviews. The participants were 36 students (22 male, 14 female) at grade 10 (age 16). Data were analyzed using constant comparative method to identify themes in the participants’ arguments. The emerged themes were action, agents of, types of, reasons for, and the tone or attitudes towards action. Most of the students lacked scientific knowledge on the SSI dilemmas, yet considered the dilemmas not as technical but as ethical problems, having their roots in human nature, manifested by the actions of individuals and governments. The students viewed human nature as extremely individualistic and hence must be regulated by a higher authority such as the government. For the students, individuals and governments are not sincere in their efforts related to SSI, leading to doubt; human nature will not change, leading to despair about the possibility of solving the SSI dilemmas. The results imply that students do not need huge amounts of scientific or philosophical knowledge to engage in SSI discussions. The results also imply that for science education it may be meaningful to focus not solely on epistemology but also on ethics and politics as well.

Appendix: The Dilemmas for the Writing Task

1.1 Dilemma 1: Energy Crisis

The year is 2030. The Third World War, which was caused by international disputes over energy resources, is over. The United Nations has decided to distribute energy resources differently. According to the resolution, no matter where energy resources are found, they belong to all nations. An international committee is being formed to discuss the distribution of these resources.

Plan: As a member of the committee, write a proposal for the new energy distribution.

Related Letters: Write two letters to the committee, one from a boy in Saudi Arabia and the other from someone in Israel.

1.2 Dilemma 2: Global Warming

There is a general consensus that climate change has a devastating effect in various parts of the globe. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was completed in 2007, stated that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts, and tropical cyclones; extreme high tides; and accelerated ice loses in the Arctic in the future if the current levels of carbon dioxide emissions are not significantly reduced and the increase of the average global temperature is not halted beyond 2°C.

Recent scientific publications of climate change processes and impacts show an increased rate of greenhouse gas accumulation in the lower atmosphere and an accelerating sea level rise. The hope to limit the global temperature increase to about 2°C, which one expected a decade ago, has vanished; today there is growing scientific evidence that temperature rises could be up to 3–4 C. Although there is an increasing awareness for the risk to our social and economic well-being, the long-term impact of climate change on the biology and health of plant and animal species including our species seems not to be fully appreciated by the political institutions and decision makers.

The world climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 was a chance for developed, emerging, and developing countries of this globe to find a binding solution for all to this global problem.

The target was the reduction of 20 % from the starting point of 1990. While the European Union tried to push for a binding agreement, the emerging countries like India, Brazil, and especially China in an alliance with the USA saw their economic growth and development at risk. (The EU would have favored a 30 % reduction.) They made minor concessions to keep the process of discussion alive but avoided the joint signature of a binding agreement. The developing countries, the hardest affected group by the extreme weather situations, decreased food yields, and increased rates of infectious diseases, were left frustrated behind with bearing the bulk of consequences and with hardly any economic power to establish a sustainable future, while the EU had to realize that its influence on the global level is limited.

The United Nations have to build the institutional level for the future negotiations and agreements. The next climate conference will held in Bonn in 2010, to finish what was supposed to be achieved in Copenhagen. Here the EU can be the driving force for a global sustainable development and a mediator between the diverged interest groups. (The German government would go as far as reducing the emission as much as 40 % – not without critical comments from their own industry lobby.)

As an independent member of the UN, write a proposal for a new global climate change program. Take a stand in form of a short written comment from the Pacific Islands, Brazil, India, China, the USA, and the EU.

1.3 Dilemma 3: Water Taxation

In order to regulate water use and assure water sustainability, several measures are being offered by the government. Currently irrigation and industry takes a considerable percentage of all water usage in Turkey. One measure is to introduce a tax on water for irrigation and industrial use. This tax is expected to push agriculture and industry to act conservatively on water usage. However, this tax would inevitably be projected onto all consumers as increased prices on food and other goods. If the tax is not put into effect in the following decades, water shortage issues are expected. If the tax is put into effect, agriculture and industry is expected to move towards better technology that helps conserve water use.

Are you in favor of this tax or against it? Discuss why you support or why you oppose this tax with your reasons.