This thesis focuses on upper secondary students’ use of resources in their supporting reasons when arguing socioscientific issues (SSIs). The skills of argumentation have been emphasized in science education during the past decades and SSIs are proven a good context for learners to enhance skills of argumentation and achieve the goal of scientific literacy. Research has shown that supporting reasons from various resources are embedded in students’ argumentation on SSIs, and also that multi-perspective involvement in reasoning is important for the quality of argumentation. To explore the reasons used by students in arguing about SSIs in this thesis, the SEE-SEP model was adopted as an analytical framework. The SEE-SEP model covers the six subject areas of sociology/culture, economy, environment/ecology, science, ethics/morality and policy, which are connected to the three aspects of knowledge, value and personal experience. Two studies covering four SSIs (global warming, GMO, nuclear power and consumption) explore how students construct arguments on one SSI topic chosen by them. In paper I, I investigated students’ use of resources in their informal argumentation and to what extent students made use of knowledge. The results showed that students used value to a larger extent (67%) than knowledge (27%). I also found that the distribution of supporting reasons generated by students varied from the different SSIs. In paper II, I explored students’ use of resources in relation to students’ study background (science majors and social-science majors) and gender. The results showed that social-science majors and females generated more numbers of reasons and also showed a larger amount of multi-disciplinary resources in their supporting reasons. From the findings of this thesis, the SEE-SEP model was established as a suitable model used to analyze students’ resources of supporting reasons while arguing about SSIs. Furthermore, the potential for applying the SEE-SEP model in teachers’ SSI-teaching and students’ SSI-learning is suggested. The implications to research and teaching are also discussed.

This study intended to examine Swedish upper secondary school students' argumentation related to the socioscientific issues about sustainable consumption and production, where the students take a position more specifically about a vegetarian diet. Examining sustainable development as an SSI becomes natural here as it is a constantly emerging feature in both the media but also within the school where it is used to give students a developing knowledge to be able to make informed decisions for future problems. This gave the idea to sustainable consumption and production which is one of the sub-goals (goal 12) of the UN goals for sustainable development which can be linked to the question of whether expanding vegetarian diets in schools would be better for sustainable development. In order to understand students' informal argumentation, the choice is to use the SEE-SEP model, which was used as a tool that gives the possibility to categorize arguments and gain an understanding of which grounds the arguments were based upon. The study will also examine the students' development of arguments during the course of the study to examine if there are changes to the argumentations during the study. The results show that students chose to mainly use environment/ecology and science-based arguments during the course of the study. An overview of the arguments shows that the students choose to use the knowledge aspect as their main support when it comes to the design of the arguments. The process of the study shows that there are changes in the design of the arguments and which categories are chosen to build the arguments.

The purpose of this study is to explore the factors that affect students' decision-making in an SSI (socio-scientific issue) about nuclear power and energy supply. The study explores students' skills in SSI argumentation and aims to clarify the relationship between values, knowledge and experiences in their SSI decision-making. Nine students grade nine participated. Their argumentation and decision-making processes were followed, the participants wrote reports on their decision-making, and data were collected during multiple stages of an instructional module, the Six-Step SSI Instructional Module. The different arguments used by the students were analysed using the framework of the SEE-SEP-model. The analysis focused on the evaluation skills demonstrated by the students during the exercise and the relationships between the knowledge, values, and experiences that they used in their argumentation. Although all the students had access to the same information and agreed on the factual aspects of the issue, they came to different decisions, the difference depending on their background knowledge, values, and experiences. The assessment framework considers the quality indicators presented in the research and focuses on both the content and the structure that can be observed in students’ SSI argumentation and is meant to function as a tool for identifying quality indicators. The implication for SSI teaching and learning is discussed.