{"title":"Analysing the Quality of Risk-Focused Socio-Scientific Arguments on Nuclear Power Using a Risk-Benefit Oriented Model","authors":"Jong-Uk Kim, Da Yeon Kang, Chan-Jong Kim","doi":"10.1007/s11165-024-10219-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Literature has emphasised the need for SSI education to systematically address the risks produced by modern society. This study examines the quality of risk-focused, socio-scientific arguments generated by 22 elementary students in South Korea, concerning nuclear power. Participants read two articles with opposing views on the nuclear phase-out policy and constructed written arguments to justify their positions on this policy. To analyse the quality of arguments, a risk-benefit oriented model encompassing both positivist and constructivist perspectives on risk was developed and applied. The model comprises knowledge components and comparison components. The research results showed that participants generally tended to justify their claims without incorporating comparison components. Some included risk-benefit comparison components, justifying their claims by presenting specific knowledge components in more detail and with more diversity, or by emphasising safety values. Based on these results, educational strategies and implications for improving the quality of students’ risk-focused socio-scientific arguments were discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10219-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Literature has emphasised the need for SSI education to systematically address the risks produced by modern society. This study examines the quality of risk-focused, socio-scientific arguments generated by 22 elementary students in South Korea, concerning nuclear power. Participants read two articles with opposing views on the nuclear phase-out policy and constructed written arguments to justify their positions on this policy. To analyse the quality of arguments, a risk-benefit oriented model encompassing both positivist and constructivist perspectives on risk was developed and applied. The model comprises knowledge components and comparison components. The research results showed that participants generally tended to justify their claims without incorporating comparison components. Some included risk-benefit comparison components, justifying their claims by presenting specific knowledge components in more detail and with more diversity, or by emphasising safety values. Based on these results, educational strategies and implications for improving the quality of students’ risk-focused socio-scientific arguments were discussed.
期刊介绍：
2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021
2020 Impact Factor: 5.439
Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus
2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus
Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership.
RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal.
You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research:
Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and
Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know.
RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted.
The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers.
Empircal contributions are:
Theoretically or conceptually grounded;
Relevant to science education theory and practice;
Highlight limitations of the study; and
Identify possible future research opportunities.
From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks.
Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is:
No longer than 6000 words, including references.
Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability;
Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education;
Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and
Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE.
While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
