Analysing the Quality of Risk-Focused Socio-Scientific Arguments on Nuclear Power Using a Risk-Benefit Oriented Model

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.