This article reports on a study of how teenagers made their decision on whether or not to vaccinate themselves against the new influenza. Its purpose was to identify connections between how teenagers talk about themselves and the decision they made. How do the teenagers construct their identities while talking about a specific socio-scientific issue? Seven teenagers between 17 and 19 years of age participated in the study. The informants were requested to document in video diary situations in which their decisions about the vaccination were discussed. All the teenagers recorded their diaries during the weeks of the vaccination programme. The students were also interviewed 1-4 weeks after completing their diaries. A discourse psychology framework (Potter and Wetherell 1987) was used to analyse the video diaries and the interviews. In this context, decision-making on a socioscientific issue must be understood as an appropriation and use of discursive repertoires, and also as meaning-making in relation to other fields, such as society and identity. It must also be understood in relation to the use of science repertoire-or actually, the school science repertoire-how available is this discourse in different contexts outside school? The repertoires were categorised into two main types; experienced emphases and important actors. The first included the categories of risk, solidarity and knowledge. The second included family and friends, media, school and society. The school repertoire was seldom used by the students, indicating that school and science education seem not to be an interpretative repertoire available to them. Instead, the risk, solidarity, family and friends and the media repertoires were available in their talk about vaccination. These results indicate the need to use media reports in dealing with scientific literacy and also in risk assessment discussions in school. It also indicates the importance of relating school science closely to the students' daily life.

This study investigates the pseudo-scientific and superstitious ideas Swedish upper-secondary students articulate and if there is a relationship between their ideas and their knowledge of the human body and health. The study is based on a questionnaire among 300 students in which the students were asked to consider statements related to different treatments that may influence the human body and health, and questions about physiology, health and nutrition. The analysis reveals that a relatively large group of students give credance to statements such as that some people can transfer thoughts or that the phases of the moon can affect a person’s health. The analysis also shows that there is no apparent relationship between the students’ pseudo-scientific beliefs and their scientific knowledge about the human body. Furthermore, although the results do not indicate a gender difference with regards to the power of faith in pseudo-scientific ideas, they do indicate that male and females consider these questions differently. The results imply a need for discussion and critical investigation in school science concerning the relationship between science and pseudo-scientific ideas in order to enhance critical thinking and development of the understanding of the nature of science.

The purpose of this thesis was to develop knowledge about young individuals' reasoning and how they justify their standpoints concerning trustworthiness and decision-making in issues connected to health where available information is contradictory or uncertain. In the first step almost 300 students in Swedish upper secondary school answered a questionnaire, which had different types of questions about pseudoscience and science. The results demonstrated large differences in acceptance between the different pseudoscientific statements. There was no apparent relationship between the students' pseudoscientific beliefs and their factual knowledge about the human body. However, the analysis revealed that students who have taken three or more science courses have relatively lower faith to pseudoscientific ideas.

No abstract

Research focusing on students’ argumentation in socioscientific issues (SSI) shows that students tend to base their arguments on values rather than knowledge. This study explores Swedish upper secondary chemistry students’ written argumentation. The data consists of student texts written at the end of an intervention designed to develop skills related to high quality argumentation. The results show that after being taught about argumentation and the context of SSI, students mainly base their arguments on content knowledge. Value justifications are present in students’ texts, but constitute a smaller proportion. Beside content knowledge- and value justifications, we found a third category – “reasoning” – in which students draw conclusions, or make predictions of future events, to support or refute a claim. The justifications in the argumentative texts include a breadth of subject areas in which chemistry knowledge plays an important role. This study suggests that content knowledge constitutes an important part in student argumentation.