SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Scientific Educational Studies / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ STANCES, JUSTIFICATIONS, AND ARGUMENTATION LEVELS ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, ANIMAL TESTING, AND COVID 19 VACCINATION

ORTAOKUL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN YAPAY ZEKÂ, HAYVAN DENEYLERİ VE COVID 19 AŞISI KONULARINDAKİ KARARLARI VE ARGÜMANTASYON DÜZEYLERİ

Zeynep Genç(ALANYA ALAADDİN KEYKUBAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6334-2049
Ayşe Yenilmez Türkoğlu(ALANYA ALAADDİN KEYKUBAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1981-2813
Pages
46–77
Publication Date
2026-06-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings indicate that stance distributions varied markedly by topic: most of students supported AI technologies and COVID-19 vaccination, yet most opposed animal experimentation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to describe the stances, justification patterns, and argumentation quality of 102 seventh-grade students at a public middle school in Turkey, on three socioscientific issues (SSI), namely artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, animal experimentation, and COVID-19 vaccination.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Findings indicate that stance distributions varied markedly by topic: most of students supported AI technologies and COVID-19 vaccination, yet most opposed animal experimentation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings carry significant pedagogical implications for the design of SSI-based argumentation activities in science education.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sosyobilimsel konular · argümantasyon · SEE-STEP modeli

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the stances, justification patterns, and argumentation quality of 102 seventh-grade students at a public middle school in Turkey, on three socioscientific issues (SSI), namely artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, animal experimentation, and COVID-19 vaccination. A quantitative survey design was employed, and data were collected through researcher-developed written argumentation scenarios. Students' stances, justifications, and argumentation quality were analyzed using frequency analysis, the SEE-STEP framework, and a well-accepted five-level analytic framework, respectively. Findings indicate that stance distributions varied markedly by topic: most of students supported AI technologies and COVID-19 vaccination, yet most opposed animal experimentation. SEE-STEP analysis revealed that justification patterns were topic-sensitive, with the technology dimension dominating the AI scenario, the ethics/morality values dimension dominating the animal experimentation scenario, and the science dimension dominating the vaccination scenario. The political dimension received virtually no engagement across any topic. Argumentation quality was concentrated predominantly at Levels 1 through 3, with fewer than nine percent of students reaching Level 4 or 5 on any scenario. These findings carry significant pedagogical implications for the design of SSI-based argumentation activities in science education.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de bir devlet ortaokulunun yedinci sınıfında öğrenim gören 102 öğrencinin yapay zekâ teknolojileri, hayvan deneyleri ve COVID-19 aşısından oluşan üç sosyobilimsel konuya ilişkin duruşlarını, gerekçe örüntülerini ve argümantasyon niteliklerini betimsel olarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nicel tarama deseninin benimsendiği araştırmada veriler, araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen yazılı argümantasyon senaryoları aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Öğrencilerin duruşları, gerekçeleri ve argümantasyon nitelikleri sırasıyla frekans analizi, SEE-STEP modeli ve Erduran ve arkadaşlarının (2004) beş düzeyli analitik çerçevesi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, duruş dağılımlarının konuya göre belirgin biçimde farklılaştığını ortaya koymaktadır: öğrencilerin çoğu yapay zekâyı ve COVID-19 aşısını desteklemekte, buna karşın çoğu hayvan deneylerine karşı çıkmaktadır. SEE-STEP analizi, gerekçe örüntülerinin konuya duyarlı olduğunu göstermiştir; teknoloji boyutu yapay zekâ senaryosuna, etik/ahlak değerleri boyutu hayvan deneyleri senaryosuna ve bilim boyutu COVID-19 aşısı senaryosuna hâkim olmuştur. Her üç konuda da politika boyutuna neredeyse hiç yer verilmemiştir. Argümantasyon niteliği ağırlıklı olarak 1-3. düzeylerde yoğunlaşmış olup herhangi bir senaryoda 4. ya da 5. düzeye ulaşan öğrenci oranı yüzde dokuzun altında kalmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Genç, Z., Türkoğlu, A. Y. (2026). MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ STANCES, JUSTIFICATIONS, AND ARGUMENTATION LEVELS ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, ANIMAL TESTING, AND COVID 19 VACCINATION. Scientific Educational Studies, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 46–77. https://doi.org/10.31798/ses.1963049

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Akbaş, M., & Çetin, P. S. (2018). Examining the argumentation quality and informal thinking skills of gifted students on various socioscientific issues. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 339–360.
  2. Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1–24.
  3. Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Hoglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students' use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342–352.
  4. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students' argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148.
  5. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
  6. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
  7. Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, C. J. (2012). The wolf issue: Upper secondary students' argumentation about a socio-scientific issue. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(1), 43–58.
  8. Eş, H., & Öztürk, N. (2021). An activity for transferring the multidimensional structure of SSI to middle school science courses: I discover myself in the decision-making process with SEE-STEP. Research in Science Education, 51, 889–910.
  9. Güler, Z. (2020). Öğretmen adaylarının epistemolojik inançları ve bazı sosyobilimsel konulardaki yazılı argümantasyon becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [An investigation of the relationship between preservice teachers' epistemological beliefs and their written argumentation skills on certain socioscientific issues] [Unpublished master's thesis]. Balıkesir University.
  10. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
  11. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
  12. Karcılı, I. (2022). Argümantasyon temelli sosyobilimsel konu öğretiminin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarına, argümantasyon düzeylerine, karar verme becerilerine ve karar verme stillerine etkisi [The effect of argumentation-based socioscientific issue instruction on 7th-grade students' academic achievement, argumentation levels, decision-making skills, and decision-making styles] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pamukkale University.
  13. Karisan, D., & Cebesoy, U. B. (2021). Use of the SEE-SEP model in pre-service science teacher education: The case of genetics dilemmas. In W. Powell (Ed.), Socioscientific issues-based instruction for scientific literacy development. Global Publication.
  14. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
  15. MoNE. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Science education curriculum, Grades 3–8]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  16. MoNE. (2024). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Türkiye Century Maarif Model science curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  17. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  18. Nielsen, J. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456.
  19. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
  20. Rebello, C. M., & Barrow, L. H. (2013). Assessing the impact of problem-based learning on preservice elementary teachers' science content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(8), 1333–1354.
  21. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Erlbaum.
  22. Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students' argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science and Education, 25(9–10), 1049–1071.
  23. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
  24. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
  25. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340.
  26. Sönmez, V. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri [Research methods in social sciences]. Anı Yayıncılık.
  27. Topçu, M. S. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi [Socioscientific issues and their teaching]. Pegem Akademi.
  28. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G.
  30. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 697–726). Routledge. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
  31. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.