Nano materials can today be found in a wide range of consumer products and the number of new products on the market is expected to inrease. In the shadow of hope for nano materilas potential in various applications, low awareness of its health and environmental risks is hiding. Furthermore, the knowledge about people´s risk perception of nano materials is limited. Parallel to the situation described above, the scholls meet the challenge of incrasing the scientific literacy. To achieve this goal, skills in argumentation in science studies has been emphasized and the concept of socio-scientific issues has been emerged. Using focus groups as a method, this study aimed first, to explore young engineering student´s risk perception of nano materials, and secont to analyze the extent to which they apply scientific konwledge to argue about nano materials. The material from the focus group interviews was analyzed with respect to both content and interaction. To analyze the content, a thematic classification of the material was made. The interactive and communicative forms were highlighted by an analysis of arguments according to the SEE-SEP-model. Seven themes were indentified from the focus group material. It was also assumed that 55 percent of the participants´arguments were based on values, 25 percent on konwledge and 20 percent on personal experiences. Despite the absence of specific knowledge, the young engineering students have the ability to conduct a complex argumentation about nano materials where they involve the paradox; new opportunities, inresolved risks. Their risk perception is not primarily based on knowledge but on emotional expressions such as fascination, hope, resignation and fear. / Nanomaterial återfinns idag i ett brett spektrum av konsumentprodukter och antalet nya produkter förväntas öka på marknaden. I skuggan av förhoppningar om nanomaterialens potential i allehanda tillämpningar döljer sig bristfälliga kunskaper om dess hälso- och miljörisker. Vidare är kunskapen om människors riskpercetion an nanometrial begränsad. Parallellt med den ovan beskrivna situationen står skolan inför utmaningen att öka den naturvetenskapliga allmänbildningen. För att uppnå målet har kompetens inom argumentation i de naturorienterande ämnene betonats och begreppet sociovetenskapliga dilemman vuxit fram. Med fokusgrupper dom metod har studien syftat dels till att undersöka unga teknikstuderandes riskperceetpion av nanomaterial, dels till att analysera i vilken utsträckning de tillämpar vetenskapliga kunskaper för att argumentera om nanomaterial. Materialet från fokusgruppsintervjuerna analyserades med avseende på både innehåll och interaktion. För att analysera innehållet gjordes en tematisk indelning av materialet. De interaktiva och kommunikativa formerna belystes genom en argumentationsanalys enligt SEE-SEP-modellen. Sju teman identifierades ur fokusgruppmaterialet. Vidare utgick 55 % av deltagarnas argument från värderingar. därefter kom kunskap med 25 % och sist personliga erfarenheter med 20 %. Trots avsaknad av specifik kunskap, har unga teknikstuderande förmågan att föra en komplex argumentation om nanomaterial där de berör pradoxen; nya möjligheter, outredda risker. Deras riskperception baseras inte främst på kunskaper utan på emotionella uttryck så som fascination, hopp,uppgivenhet och rädsla.

This thesis aims to explore students’ argumentation and decision-making relating to authentic socioscientific issues (SSI). The ability to make informed decisions about socio scientific issues has been recognized to be an important element in science education to achieve the goal of scientific literacy. However, deliberation on SSIs deals with the fact-value intertwinement and has proven to be a tricky affair, both for students and teachers. In paper I, the focus is on upper secondary students’ use of different reasons in arguing about the existence of wolfs in Sweden. To investigate the students’ ability to find supporting reasons from different subject areas in their informal argumentation, the SEE-SEP model was used as an analytical framework. The results showed that the value aspect dominates students’ informal argumentation on the SSI of wolves in Sweden. In paper II a six-step SSI instructional model is presented, designed to develop students’ ability to argue about complex multi-disciplinary issues. This six-step SSI instructional model aims to create a forum that encourages students to interact with one-another and discuss their arguments dynamically. In paper III students’ argumentation and decision-making upon an authentic SSI relating to environmental toxins in fish from the Baltic Sea, was studied. The students’ argumentation and decision making processes were followed closely and data were collected during multiple stages of the SSI-instructional model. The analysis focused on students’ skills of evaluation and the relationships between the values, knowledge and experiences that they used in their argumentation. The results showed that even though all of the students had access to the same information and agreed on the factual aspects of the issue, they came to different decisions, depending on their background values, knowledge and experiences (i.e. their intellectual baggage). Implications for teaching and research are discussed. / Förmågan att fatta välgrundade beslut i sociovetenskapliga dilemman (SSI) har lyfts fram som ett viktigt inslag i naturvetenskaplig undervisning för att förbereda eleverna på ett liv som medborgare i ett samhälle där kontroversiella frågor med naturvetenskaplig koppling förekommer i allt högre grad. Att hantera SSI-frågor i undervisningen och handskas med sammanflätningen av vetenskapliga fakta, värderingar och etiska perspektiv innebär dock stora utmaningar för både elever och lärare. Fokus i denna avhandling är inriktat mot att ytterligare synliggöra de ingående komponenterna och processerna som sker i arbetet med SSI-frågor, och därmed belysa viktiga aspekter som bör iakttas vid implementering av SSI-frågor i undervisningen. Genom studie I detekteras olika argument baserade på kunskaper, värderingar respektive erfarenheter kopplat till olika ämnesområden, och i studie II förs resonemang att det s.k. intellektuella baggaget, bestående av personliga värderingar, kunskaper och erfarenheter, styr viktning och värdering av olika argument och därmed vilket beslut som slutligen tas. En given slutsats är att SSI-baserad undervisning i det naturvetenskapliga klassrummet alltid måste bygga på en tolerans för en sammanflätning av vetenskapliga fakta, värderingar och etiska perspektiv.

In this thesis the focus is on upper secondary school students’ meaning-making in sustainability in science civic education. The aim is to study how meaning is created, if/how natural science is used and how democratic participation is constructed in students’ group discussions. The thesis also aims to create an awareness of the role science has in both the creation of meaning and the construction of democratic participation. The study is based on audio-recorded group discussions arising from two different sustainability tasks. Discursive psychology is used as an analytical framework, through the concepts of interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. The students use different interpretative repertoires that draw on different conceptions of the “world” (discourses) in their meaning-making. These different conceptions create ideological dilemmas that recur several times during the discussions and are therefore negotiated in different ways. The students then use strategies where these dilemmas are solved in a relatively simple manner. They construct the sustainability issue they discuss so that their ways to live and act/not act are portrayed as acceptable in the current situation. The students use their knowledge in and about science in their meaning-making. Science is used to make the "world" more understandable and raise questions; to evaluate, decide and act; to give authority to arguments; and to solve societal problems. The students’ science-making process contains various kinds of use of scientific knowledge, for example, clarify the conditions, identify consequences, scrutinize information, compare, assess, evaluate and use scientific methods. The discussions increase the students’ experience of using scientific knowledge and which functions scientific knowledge can have. The students construct democratic participation in various ways: trust in science and technology are expressed and awareness of what is considered as actions that are “good” for the environment; different perspectives are expressed and ideological dilemmas discussed; students use their scientific knowledge in socioscientific reasoning to create a deeper understanding of the issues discussed; scientific knowledge is also used for evaluating actions in relation to sustainability issues. However, the students see themselves having a major responsibility to act “good”, but without power to influence the development of society as a whole. The students have two projects going on during their discussions: to discuss and learn about the sustainability issue and make their own existence acceptable.