Between Rationality and Self-protection: Student-Constructed Arguments on Fast Food Consumption and Antibiotics Overuse as Public Health Issues in Biology Education

Between Rationality and Self-protection: Student-Constructed Arguments on Fast Food Consumption and Antibiotics Overuse as Public Health Issues in Biology Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Between Rationality and Self-protection: Student-Constructed Arguments on Fast Food Consumption and Antibiotics Overuse as Public Health Issues in Biology Education Eliza Rybska, Michał Klichowski, Costas P. Constantinou, Barbara Jankowiak This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7758515/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Argumentation → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Nurturing the ability to argue is of great importance in science education, even though students often encounter cognitive and emotional barriers. The aim of this study was to examine facets of high school students’ argumentation and their dependence on topic. We chose topics of varied perceived relevance to their daily lives: the sale of fast food in school canteens (group 1) and the addition of antibiotics to animal feed (group 2). The study involved 249 high school students aged 14–16, in Poland. Of these high school students, 139 participated in an intervention about fast food, and 110 in an intervention about the use of antibiotics. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to process and analyze the data. On average, students' arguments scored higher on the topic of antibiotic use on animal feed. Qualitative content analysis of the students’ arguments identified four thematic groups: 1) personal aspects revealing personal meanings, values and defence mechanisms; 2) scientific aspects revealing personal substantive knowledge; 3) socio-cultural aspects revealing economic, sociological or cultural aspects; 4) non-sensical arguments. A topic related to students’ personal decisions and perceived to be closes to their lives and daily experience (eating fast food in the school canteen) more often prompted arguments indicating cognitive defence, by denying the harmfulness of fast food and emphasizing possible advantages or appealing to the right to choose. Based on this finding, we discuss the need for defense mechanisms and emotional engagement to be taken into consideration in designs for the teaching of argumentation. argumentation socio-scientific issues nutrition health education Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Argumentation on socio-scientific issues (SSIs) presents a challenge to school students due to their controversial, ill-structured nature, and—perhaps more importantly—the complexity and multidisciplinary character of these issues (Högström et al. 2024 ; Jimenez et al. 2024). In some cases, the difficulty may stem from a lack of sufficient scientific knowledge, which limits students' ability to reason about SSIs (Christenson 2015 ). Pedagogical barriers may also play a role; for example, teaching often lacks a strong focus on SSIs and the development of argumentation skills (Acar et al. 2010 ; Högström et al. 2024 ). Furthermore, the content of certain SSIs can evoke strong emotions and psychological reactions. In our study, we compared students' arguments on two different socio-scientific issues that vary in psychological distance: fast-food consumption and the overuse of antibiotics. The results show significant differences in the structure and scientific complexity of the arguments. Interestingly, topics perceived as psychologically closer to students may present additional challenges, revealing self-protective mechanisms in how students justify their behaviors and choices. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the nature of scientific argumentation on socio-scientific issues in school settings. Theoretical background The Role of Socio-Scientific Issues (SSIs) in Science Education Socioscientific issues (SSIs) are not merely theoretical concepts—they are controversial, socially relevant, and real-world problems informed by science and often involving ethical dimensions. These are contemporary scientific topics that can have significant impacts on society and individuals’ lives (Sadler 2004 ). As Sadler et al. ( 2006 , p. 2) note, “Socioscientific issues are usually value-laden, and the juxtaposition of science and ethics can be uncomfortable for scientists, teachers, and students who define science in terms of objectivity.” SSIs often affect students’ communities and everyday lives, making the subject matter more relatable and engaging. Due to their complex nature, they require decision-making at both personal and societal levels, making working with them a challenging yet valuable educational task. These problems typically do not have simple, definitive answers, which makes them ideal for classroom discussions and for developing students' argumentation skills. The key goals of introducing SSIs into the classroom include enhancing scientific understanding, fostering citizenship education, enabling informed decision-making, empowering students to participate in debates, equipping them to navigate complexity, and deepening their understanding of the nature of science (Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2009 ). One prominent area of SSI is human health and nutrition. Although considerable research has been conducted on implementing SSIs in classrooms, teaching them effectively in science education remains a persistent challenge (Högström et al. 2024 ; Chen and Xiao 2021 ). Argumentation and competence of argumentation Mastering the art of effective argumentation is a skill that, while seemingly innate, requires nurturing to reach its full potential. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (2011) posited that our capacity for reasoning, which encompasses the ability to construct and evaluate arguments, has evolved primarily to enhance communication and, by extension, survival. This skill is of paramount importance for scientists, as the advancement of knowledge in science is heavily dependent on argumentation and critique. Through rigorous examination, scientific endeavors strive to achieve consensus within the community. Science upholds objectivity by actively participating in discourse and argumentation (Osborne 2010 ). In line with the recommendation that science education should mirror the nature of science (e.g. Lederman, 2013 ; Schwartz et al., 2004 ), argumentation should be a cornerstone of every science lesson, underscoring its significance in the field. Although argumentation is an important skill, it has been demonstrated that students encounter various challenges when constructing arguments. Including basic argumentation skill gap where students often have trouble combining claims and supporting evidence clearly, presenting diverse viewpoints, and understanding what constitutes an argument. Some do not clearly distinguish key components of an argument, such as claims, evidence, and reasoning (Kleemola et al. 2022). In other cases, students’ understanding of complex scientific content can be an obstacle in constructing a scientific argument (Jimenez et al. 2024). Teaching argumentation in a school context often presents a challenge to teachers. Sardag and Cakmakci ( 2025 ) reported in their research that teachers, while assessing students’ arguments, make implicit or explicit positive and negative assessments, but at the same time avoid explicit assessments and usually provide content feedback, which does not fully support students’ ability to construct arguments. McNeill and colleagues ( 2016 ) highlighted the problems with teachers’ beliefs and understanding of what constitutes an argument, and the need to incorporate argumentation into science curricula. Argumentation on socio-scientific issues can be challenging due to the nature of socio-scientific problems. The complexity and multidisciplinarity are one challenge, since Socio-scientific issues are inherently complex, involving not just scientific content but also posses moral/ethical, social, political, and economic dimensions. SSI problems also present a challenge due to their ill-structured and controversial nature. Problems developed on SSIs are often open-ended and controversial, with no single correct answer. This ambiguity can be challenging for students who are used to textbook problems with clear solutions. The need to navigate conflicting viewpoints and uncertainty requires advanced reasoning and tolerance for ambiguity (Jimenez et.al. 2024) This tension stems from the way traditional school contexts often portray science as a unified body of positivist knowledge—objective, certain, and detached from sociocultural or contextual influences. In contrast, more progressive approaches to science education, particularly those involving SSIs, emphasize a nuanced understanding of science as context-dependent and deeply embedded in social and cultural realities (Zeidler and Sadler 2023 ). Health and Nutrition as SSI Contexts Maintaining good health and eating a healthy diet are crucial for living a long and healthy life. They provide the body with the nutrients it needs to function properly and stay strong. They are also public and socio-scientific issues. At the same time, they are presented in core curricula all over the world. What we consume and how we do it influences our bodies and well-being. Thus, many governmental and academic bodies are interested in the abovementioned topics. The term “health literacy” was constructed, and it was defined as the ability to read, understand, and act on health information. As Andrus and Roth claim health literacy “includes such tasks as reading and comprehending prescription labels, interpreting appointment slips, completing health insurance forms, following instructions for diagnostic tests, and understanding other essential health-related materials required to adequately function as a patient” (2002, p. 283). The U.S. government’s Healthy People 2030 in 2020 has redefined Health literacy as “the degree to which individuals have the ability to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others.” Regardless of the term' health literacy,' two other related terms were created in the context of the presented work – food literacy and nutrition literacy. Food literacy encompasses a range of interconnected knowledge, skills, and behaviors aimed at understanding, managing, selecting, preparing, and consuming food. Thus, individuals who are food literate are able to contribute to a sustainable food system while considering all social, environmental, economic, political, and cultural factors (Kolasa et al. 2001 ; Block et al. 2011 ; Vidgen and Gallegos 2014 ; Silva 2023 ). Nutrition literacy refers to the extent to which an individual can access, interpret, and comprehend fundamental nutritional guidance and resources to make informed dietary decisions. It encompasses understanding key nutritional principles and possessing the capability to assess, interpret, and utilize nutritional information effectively, including awareness of nutrients and their health implications. Moreover, it entails the ability to acquire, understand, and apply dietary information from diverse outlets, including knowledge of food metabolism, its health effects, and the application of such knowledge in making optimal choices (Krause et al. 2016 ; Neuhauser et al. 2007 ; Escott-Stump 2011 ; Silva 2023 ). Taking into account the consequences of illiteracy in all three aspects leading to health problems in society, it is not surprising that the aspect of health education is often raised as an important component of general education. As Pérez-Rodrigo and Aranceta ( 2001 ) claim, nutrition education is an effective tool in health promotion programs with a focus on the development of healthy eating practices. It is essential to develop a healthy eating habit, as it can influence not only learning abilities but also overall well-being. Dietary patterns play a critical role as a risk factor for numerous diseases, affecting both their development and progression, as well as impacting the treatment process and patients' quality of life. These patterns are closely linked to lifestyle-related diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, obesity, cancer, and diabetes (Synowiec-Piłat et al. 2017 ). The nutritional status in many countries demands attention and necessitates proactive measures. Education has emerged as a potential and encouraging avenue for averting future health crises. According to Contento, ( 2011 ), there are three main approaches to nutritional education: Providing information about food and nutrition that is backed by scientific research Shaping dietary behaviors that promote health and well-being Creating a physical and social environment that supports motivation and actions aimed at making positive changes in eating habits Implementing all three approaches appears to be the most viable strategy. Additionally, it is widely recognized that merely informing individuals or presenting facts alone is insufficient to catalyze changes in human behavior effectively. Also FAO (Nutrition Education 2021) recommends the use of active methods of learning about nutrition. One might assume that a person who is food literate not only knows what to eat and how, but also, in a broader sense, where their food comes from, how it affects their body and health, what one should consider when choosing their food, etc. Immediacy and personal relevance as factors that can influence students' learning Pedagogical research finds an agreement that personal relevance is a crucial factor in achieving meaningful learning. Pedagogues such as Vygotsky, Bruner, and Piaget were among those who claimed that learning, to be effective, requires an active approach. Additionally, sociocultural constructivism based on Vygotsky (1985) holds to the principle of the indissociability of the individual and the environment, asserting that cognitive activity is embedded in an interindividual, cultural, and institutional context. Thus, the construction and validation of learned concepts are both collective and individual activities, and they occur through a process of argumentation within a community (Cobb et al. 1998 ). Ausubel ( 1968 ) claimed that the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Brown and Ryoo (2009) argue for the integration of students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds into science teaching to make the content more relatable and comprehensible. In their project, they demonstrated that students who learned to understand phenomena in everyday terms before being taught scientific language developed a more comprehensive understanding of new concepts related to photosynthesis. Bell et al. ( 2009 ) in their report discussed how learning in informal environments, which often builds on familiar contexts and experiences, can effectively enhance science understanding. Personal relevance is connected with motivation, and Dewey ( 1913 ) formally recognized the potential of personal relevance to motivate students and boost learning, noting that “things indifferent or even repulsive in themselves often become of interest because of assuming relationships and connections of which we were previously unaware” (p. 22). Priniski et al. ( 2018 ), in their review, defined relevance as “a personally meaningful connection to the individual.” These authors concluded that relevance is a personally meaningful connection to the individual and can be conceptualized along a continuum of personal meaningfulness, ranging from personal association to personal usefulness and ultimately to identification. Additionally, the Framework for K-12 Science Education (2012) by the National Research Council, which underpins the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), highlights the importance of using students' prior knowledge and experiences as a foundation for building new scientific understanding. This framework emphasizes the importance of engaging students in practices that mimic the work of scientists and engineers, beginning with their own observations and questions about the world. These examples reflect the ongoing recognition in science education research that starting from familiar content can significantly enhance student engagement and learning outcomes. Aim of the study We have chosen two topics related to nutrition: fast food consumption and antibiotic usage, with a specific example of using antibiotics in animal feed. As a learning tool, we have chosen argumentation as a form of interactive dialogue that helps in the construction of scientific knowledge (Kitcher 1988; Jiménez-Aleixandre and Erduran 2007 ). Argumentation enables students to utilize information and make evidence-based decisions while constructing an argument (Puig et al. 2012 ). The aim of our research is to examine the quality of argumentation and the issues raised by secondary school students when they are required to respond to structured argumentation tasks concerning two different socio-scientific issues. Research questions: What is the quality of written arguments created by high school students when asked to respond to structured argumentation tasks on social-scientific nutrition-related issues? What issues do high school students raise when they are challenged to respond to a structured argumentation in the tasks on two different socio-scientific nutrition topics that are differentially relevant to their lives and personal decisions? Whether fast food should be available in a school canteen? Whether we should be adding antibiotics to animal feed? Methodology Teaching approach The study involved students attending five different high schools in Poznań. In each high school, two classes participated in the project. Each class had an average of 20 people. All of them were in second grade and studied extended biological courses. Each intervention lasted two teaching hours. Students received individual worksheets on which they were asked to provide answers to given tasks. All the participants took part in classes focused on argumentation. In the first part of the classes, their personal knowledge about what an argument is and when to use it was activated. Then, fundamental concepts related to the structure of arguments and their role in education and teaching were presented. An example of an argument concerning smoking in public places was presented. Subsequently, students collectively attempted to create an argument regarding the impact of owning a dog on the owner's mood. Further on, they were asked to develop their argument regarding whether it is worth taking a class trip by ship in the Baltic Sea during summer vacation. To support students in building their own argument and fulfilling its structure, they received a worksheet with elements of an argument to be filled in. This template is presented in the figure below (Fig. 1 ). After independently constructing their arguments, students presented them on a forum. They provided feedback to one another regarding the structure of the arguments, the logical coherence of their statements, and other aspects. The next part of the class was different for the two groups. In one group, time was devoted to solving a problem related to fast food consumption. Students received cards with information about research findings and various opinions on the effects of consuming fast food. After reviewing the materials, a brief discussion took place regarding the potential benefits and drawbacks of consuming such products. Part of the discussion focused on which information could be considered credible and which less credible or potentially manipulative (e.g., a hypothetical statement from a marketing executive of a well-known fast-food restaurant). The final part of the class was about students individually creating an argument in response to the problem question: "Should fast food be sold in schools?" The other group was exposed to the topic of antibiotics, including problems related to their overuse in everyday life and the consequences for the environment. This included the overuse of antibiotics in feed for farm animals. Students received cards with information about research findings and various opinions on the effects of antibiotic overuse. After reviewing the materials, a brief discussion took place regarding the potential benefits and drawbacks of using antibiotics in feed for farm animals daily. Part of the discussion focused on which information could be considered credible and which less credible or potentially manipulative (e.g., a hypothetical statement from a marketing executive of a supermarket or a farmer). The final part of the class was about students individually creating an argument in response to the problem question: "Should we keep adding antibiotics to animal feed?" In both cases, the class concluded with a discussion where students exchanged the arguments they had prepared. The educational intervention aimed to create conditions in which all three assumptions described by Contento ( 2011 ) are met. We provided students with information about the effects of consuming fast food in the first group, and we created conditions for choosing the environment (whether fast food should be sold in the school cafeteria). The second group received information about the effects of adding antibiotics to animal feed daily, and we created conditions for choosing the environment (whether antibiotics should be added to animal feed). Through discussion, we also aimed to establish a physical as well as a social environment where it would be possible to shape students' motivation for engaging in health-promoting actions. The flow chart representing the teaching sequence is presented in Fig. 2 . Research design and ethics The XXX project protocol was approved by the ethical committee of XXX University. Written consent was obtained from participants and parents/legal guardians to participate in the project. All content covered during the project was consistent with the biology core curriculum in Poland. The obtained results of the study are in no way connected with the obtained personal data (from the consent form for participation and parents/legal guardians in the study) and are presented in a way that makes it impossible to identify the people participating in the study. Only Prof. XXX has access to the consent of the participants/participants and parents/legal guardians, and therefore their personal data. Protection of this data will be in accordance with the principles of General Data Protection Regulation enshrined in the Act of May 10, 2018 on the Protection of Personal Data (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1000). Data collection The study involved 249 students from Polish schools aged 14–16. Of these high school students, 139 participated in an intervention about fast food, and 110 in an intervention about the use of antibiotics. All the participants took part in classes focused on argumentation. Firstly, their personal knowledge about what an argument is was activated. Then, fundamental concepts related to the structure of arguments were presented. An example of an argument concerning smoking in public places was presented. Subsequently, students collectively attempted to create an argument regarding the impact of owning a dog on the owner's mood. Further on, they were asked to create their own argument regarding whether it is worth going on a class trip by ship in the Baltic Sea during the summer vacation. After independently constructing their arguments, students presented them on a forum and provided each other with feedback regarding the structure of the arguments, the logical coherence of their statements, and so on. The next part of the class was devoted to presenting information related to fast food consumption or antibiotics. The final part of the class was about students individually creating an argument in response to the problem question: "Should fast food be sold in schools?" or “Should we keep adding antibiotics to animal feed?”. The class concluded with a discussion where students exchanged their prepared arguments. Their answers were collected and analyzed. Worksheets with no scientific argument provided were excluded from the analysis. All worksheets with even partial responses wwere analyzed. Data analysis Written arguments were assessed using a rubric from Schen (2013). Each written argument was assessed, and for claim and Counterclaim, the maximum number of points that could be received was 2; for evidence, reasoning, and rebuttal, the maximum number of points was 3. Together, the maximum number of points for that whole argument possible to achieve was 13. Then, due to the lack of normal distribution of the data, a U Mann-Whitney (JAMOVI) test was performed to compare the quantitative aspects of argument assessment between the two groups (those participating in the fast-food intervention vs. those participating in the antibiotics intervention). A qualitative exploratory analysis was also performed. To discern qualities in students’ reasoning revealed in their arguments, we used the framework of qualitative content analysis (QCA; Graneheim and Lundman 2004 ; Graneheim et al. 2017 ). We performed a QCA in four steps, including 1) discerning meaning units from students' answers, 2) condensing codes, 3) grouping codes into bigger categories - creating categories, and 4) formulating themes across students’ discussions. Findings Quantitative analysis of the quality of an argument The analysis of students’ written arguments by applying the rubric proposed by Schen (2013) shows us that, on average, students' arguments scored higher on the topic of antibiotic use in animal food. The percentage distribution of the evaluation of the arguments in the two themes—selling fast food in schools (Group 1) and adding antibiotics to animal food (Group 2) — is shown in Fig. 3 . The results from the quantitative assessment of written students' arguments are presented in Table 1 , showing the average number of points received by students in both groups. Table 1 Quantitative analysis of students’ written arguments in both topics – average number of points for each element of an argument. Aspect of an argument Average number of points on Fast food intervention argument Average number of points on the Antibiotics intervention argument Claim (max 2 points) 1,13 1,51 Evidence (max 3 points) 0,58 0,81 Reasoning (max 3 points) 1,54 1,84 Counterclaim (max 2 points) 1,07 1,16 Rebuttal (max 3 points) 1,12 1,11 Overall (max 13 points) 5,43 6,44 The U Mann-Whitney test showed that overall written arguments among the two groups differ, and that difference was statistically significant. In particular, elements of the analysis showed that the two groups exhibited statistically significant differences in the aspects of claim and reasoning. A trend was also visible in evidence of written arguments (Table 2 ) Table 2 Statistical analysis of the quality of the written arguments in both groups – results of the U Mann-Whitney test. Aspect of an argument U Mann Witney p Claim 5709 <,001 Evidence 6674 0,060 Reasoning 6099 0,004 Counterclaim 7015 0,206 Rebuttal 7623 0,968 Overall 6055 0,004 Qualitative analysis of the written arguments Four steps of the qualitative analysis framework (Graneheim & Lundman 2004 ) were applied and are presented in Tables 3 and 4 . In both analyzed groups, we have distinguished three main thematic groups: 1) Personal aspects revealing personal relevance, values and defense mechanisms 2) Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects 3) Socio-cultural aspects revealing economical, sociological or cultural aspects 4) Some arguments were also categorized to a non-sensical group (here students did not provide any reasoning, some of them just listed the diseases, or described what is in the fast food or antibiotics, or possessed significant scientific misconceptions, or were illogical) Table 1 represents a detailed example of qualitative analysis of reasoning in arguments and counterarguments provided by students on the topic of fast food consumption at school. Table 2 represents a detailed example of qualitative analysis of reasoning in arguments and counterarguments provided by students on the topic of adding antibiotics to animal feed. Table 1 Examples of QCA coding on the topic of fast food consumption. 1. Meaning units 2. Codes 3. Categories 4. Themes A ban on selling fast food in schools would limit my freedom and the freedom to choose whether I want to be healthy Restriction of freedom Restricting freedom of choice is a threat to autonomy Personal aspects revealing personal relevance, values, and defense mechanisms Argument in favour of selling fast food in school canteens Such food is eagerly bought by young people, which will increase profits, and it is fast, which will increase the convenience of the school shop or Fast food and sweets make you happy. Value-related, hierarchy of values – gives happiness, and this is most important. Restricting freedom of choice is a threat to the autonomous choice of the hierarchy of values fast food in small quantities is not so harmful or Our diet should be based on a variety of products; no food will harm us if consumed in moderation. Prohibiting ourselves from eating can lead to eating disorders. Small amount is not that bad, we need calories, we need sugar, and fat Minimizing harmfulness: arguments reducing cognitive dissonance maintain anti-health behaviors (they are unhealthy)…The most important thing is a person's health, consuming such products can contribute to many illnesses and memory difficulties, we can find substitutes that are just as tasty but healthier. Unhealthy, negatively affects our body/ unhealthy, and health is a value Obesity Health Personal aspects revealing the relevance of the topic and values Argument against selling fast food in school canteens Fast food should not be sold at school because it negatively affects our health and brain function. Neurodegenerative diseases, Focusing on problems The brain sees it as a treat Brain-related Aspects Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects Argument against selling fast food in the school canteen fast food is rich in saturated fats and carbohydrates, the high intake of which can lead to difficulties in remembering and learning, which is very difficult for children, and is also quickly absorbed, causing insulin spikes. Blood glucose spikes Insulin spikes, Insulin problems, Pancreatic problems Glucose-insulin loop It contains a lot of fatty acidas and carbohydrates. After a short time of feeling better with lots of energy, a large amount of insulin is secreted, which quickly and effectively lowers sugar levels, resulting in a feeling of fatigue. Many fats, Sugar, High in calories, high in energy Highly processed food, Quality of food Ingredients excessive consumption of fast food is associated with negative health consequences, e.g. overweight, obesity, cardiovascular disease, the development of chronic diseases. Sugars cause sugar spikes and saturated fats cause cholesterol deposition, which builds up in the blood vessels - atherosclerosis Circulatory system problems Heart problems atherosclerosis depression they will stay with us Obesity Diseases when we don't have much time during the day it is easier to reach for something quick and warm Short breaks at school - lack of time present everywhere - parents do not have money to pay for a doctor Socio-cultural aspects Argument in favour of selling fast food in school canteens Fast food is unhealthy, and schools should not set a bad example of nutrition Or A school is a place that is supposed to set the best possible example for students, and selling fast food would support an unhealthy lifestyle School as a template Schools should not promote bad example, attitudes are shaped at schools Rules must be obey Bad example Responsibility Need for education Affects learning/ focusing Fast and cheap, School related - attitudes Socio-cultural aspects Argument against selling fast food in the school canteen We can prepare tasty food at home as well and healthy self-made food Organizational Even if you don't have time, you can cook the meal at home and take it with you Lack of time, do it in advance Organizational The number of obese young people has been increasing in recent years, and this is becoming a widespread social problem, because soon there will be no athletes and the healthcare system will no longer be able to cope. Healthcare system problems, social problems, and lack of athletes Consequences for society Fast food is ble – it can lead to diseases and other problems. We don’t want to make children addicted to this. There are also data and statistics showing food overproduction and a lack of self-discipline. Lack of connection “Word salad” lack of logical connections between sentences Nonsensical An excess of sugar causes insulin spikes because we eat a lot of calories. Misunderstanding of the connection between calories, glucose and insulin Misunderstanding of scientific concepts Nonsensical Table 2 Examples of QCA coding on the topic of antibiotic usage 1. Meaning units 2. Codes 3. Categories 4. Themes were used prophylactically in livestock farms, they should no longer be used because they were not withdrawn without reason, their use was only to provide high benefits to livestock farmers who cannot allow the losses caused by slaughtering animals that have contracted the disease or Reducing the amount of antibiotics in feed has a positive impact on consumer health - fewer chemicals in food human health paramount, ethics of farming, human ethics Values/opinions Personal aspects revealing the relevance of the topic and values Argument in favour of adding antibiotics to animal feed We come into contact with a lot of bacteria every day, yet we don't need to take antibiotics every day. Or In the past, antibiotics did not exist and people lived we don't take it so we're fine, there used to be no antibiotics, other drugs could be given (e.g. for immunity), many farmers don't give them and nothing happens Common sense thinking the financial losses and the future of human health are incomparable (human health is more important), and we may end up with no effective antibiotics Vision of no meat, Vision of no time, Vision of no medicines Thread/ fears This causes antibiotic resistance. As a result, there are more and more dangerous bacteria Or antibiotics discharged into the environment with faeces allow bacteria in the environment to become resistant to them, thus increasing the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, making it a problem in the future bacteria can exchange plasmids with each other carrying drug-resistant genes, bacteria can exchange vertically making it possible to acquire drug-resistant genes in a single generation or Through constant additions, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. By making bacteria resistant to antibiotics, our humanity will be able to have problems with diseases and their cure in the future and kill Or antibiotic resistance, i.e. the resistance of bacteria to a particular antibiotic, is caused by their repeated exposure to the same antibiotic. This results in a lack of sensitivity of the bacteria to the antibiotic, so that the bacteria will survive and multiply as well as exchange antibiotic-resistant plasmids with other bacteria, causing the multiplication of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in general, which poses a particular threat to animal health environmental effects, health effects e.g. human immunity, microbiome, lack of medicines in the future, meat with antibiotics, meat with bacteria, accumulation of antibiotics The effects of antibiotic overuse Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects Argument against adding antibiotics to animal feed prolonged use of antibiotics metaphylactically leads to an inability to fight these drug-resistant bacteria, besides which, in the case of an outbreak in an animal or group of animals, a veterinarian may prescribe an antibiotic to combat the disease when it is necessary antibiotics only for sick animals- vet control Need for control The chronic use of antibiotics can trigger resistance in bacteria that will be in the animal's environment or that will infect the animal, with the result that antibiotics will no longer help animals to fight infections from which human food products are produced. There is a risk that resistant bacteria developed in the animal's body can infect the human body , causing an illness that is difficult to control animal-to-human transfer of bacteria Resistance to antibiotics of bacteria and its environmental consequences Relations human-bacteria-environment if the antibiotics stop working we will invent new ones improvement of antibiotics new antibiotics The potential of biology Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects Argument in favour of adding antibiotics to animal feed We should add antibiotics to feed because it weakens the bacteria and our immune system cannot cope with them an antibiotic is a medicine, misconception – humans might not fight bacteria Nature of antibiotics Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects Argument in Favour of adding antibiotics Misconception Antibiotics in feed prevent disease in animals because they will kill bacteria Or Antibiotics annihilate the bacterial structure by their action and prevent the disease from continuing. without the addition of antibiotics, animals will suffer and die from bacteria Decreasing immunological resistance of animal’s - killing bacteria animal addiction to it, epidemics, animal diseases- deaths of animals- suffering of animals Health implications improved sanitation in mass animal farms would reduce the likelihood of epidemics and improve the environment, (so antibiotics do not need to be used) sanitary conditions on farms Costs Socio-cultural aspects Argument against adding antibiotics to animal feed if the EU has banned it, it means that there was a reason to do so EU regulation/ law Principles Socio-cultural aspects Argument against adding antibiotics to animal feed Restricting antibiotics will cause financial losses through animal extinction Or the exclusion of antibiotics can cause epidemics in livestock and lead to large financial losses for farmers financial costs for farmers, benefits to humans (as a value for some), compensation for farmers, more expensive meat/higher food prices Costs Socio-cultural aspects Argument in Favour of adding antibiotics If animals consume antibiotics, bacteria could become resistant, and there might be fewer of them. This could also affect water and plants. Misunderstanding of the resistance of bacteria Misunderstanding science Nonsensical Antibiotics kill bacteria, so without them they will get sick Concepts are not related logically Lack of connection Nonsensical In the past, antibiotics didn’t exist, and people still lived Lack of understanding of the scientific concept Common-sense reasoning Nonsensical Most of the arguments written by students were assigned to more than one category, so in the analysis we assumed that all of them would be listed. Hence, almost every argument is assigned to several categories. for example: Against: “fast food is rich in saturated fats and carbohydrates, the high intake of which can lead to difficulties in remembering and learning, which is very difficult for children, and is also quickly absorbed, causing insulin spikes.” Categories: Personal content knowledge: Ingredients; brain related, Glucose-insuline loop In the analysis of the qualitative part, there are therefore more responses in thematic groups than the number of participants due to the classification of an argument (including a counterargument) into more than one thematic group. Table 3 represents the distribution of thematic groups in analyzed arguments in both groups of students. The analysis shows the distribution of thematic groups for reasoning and for counter-arguments. Table 3 The distribution of thematic groups in analyzed arguments in both groups of students - fast food and antibiotics. The numbers in the table indicate the following thematic codes: 1- Personal aspects revealing personal relevance and values; 2 - Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects, 3 - Socio-cultural aspects revealing economical, sociological or cultural aspects, 4 - Non-sensical/common-sense, and 0 - indicates no answer provided. Group 1 – fast food in school canteen case Group 2 – antibiotics in animal farms case Thematic code used in reasoning (warrant and backing) Thematic code used in counterargument Number of cases Thematic code used in reasoning (warrant and backing) Thematic code used in counterargument Number of cases 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 4 1 0 3 1,2 1 1,3 2 2 1 1,2 0 1 3 1 1,3 3 1,2 0 1 2 1 1 3 1,4 1,4 1 1,2 4 2 0 7 1,3 1 1 2 2,3 3 1,3 3 1,2,3 2 1,4 2 3 1 2 19 1,4 1 3 2,3 16 2 0 6 2,4 4 1 25 3 20 1,2 24 3,4 1 1,3 11 4 4 1,4 1 2,3 2,4 1 2 19 3 2 2,3 4 2,4 2,4 2 3 6 1 2 1,2,3 4 3 0 2 2,3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1,3 1 4 0 1 4 0 2 2,3 1 1,3 1 4 6 4 3 1,2,3 1 1 0 1,3 2 SUM 139 110 Table 4 represents the total number of assigned thematic codes to the students' arguments and the percentages of their appearance. Table 4 Assigned thematic codes to the students' arguments. Fast foods – number of cases where the arguments included thematic code (N = 139) % Antibiotics – number of cases where the arguments included thematic code (N = 110) % Thematic code 1 – personal relevance 119 85% 23 21% Thematic code 2 – scientific reasoning 90 70% 97 88% Thematic code 3 -socio-economical aspects 30 21,60% 51 46,40% Thematic code 4 – nonsensical answer 10 7,20% 26 23,60% The data presented in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that, when constructing arguments for both topics, students used scientific content quite often. However, students who argued against or in favour of the sale of fast food in school canteens used significantly more elements related to personal relevance compared to those addressing the use of antibiotics in animal farming. In contrast, the latter group was more likely to include socio-economic arguments. Moreover, the number of nonsensical responses was notably higher in this group, suggesting that the complexity of the scientific content may have posed a greater challenge for them. Discussion In the presented research, the analysis of students' written responses suggests that the topic of discussion matters to the extent that it might influence the quality of the produced arguments. Using Toulmin’s argumentation pattern to assess the instruments for argument aspects and quality allowed us to compare two groups – we can assume that the topic matters. It is worth mentioning that the quality of students' written arguments in this research was average and higher than college science majors when exposed to a task related to evolution (Schen 2013). It can also be explained by the way the presented research was designed. Students in our research received a rich scaffolding on how argument looks like and on the topic they were supposed to argue about. Although similar themes were raised in both groups (content-related and socio-cultural) – the distribution was not even, a richer and bigger variety of codes and categories were observed in the topic related to fast food. The analysis of the students' arguments indicates that the topic related to their personal decisions and close to their lives (eating fast food in the school canteen) resulted in the appearance of arguments indicating cognitive defense. It was different in the case of a topic that is distant to them and on which they do not make decisions on a daily basis (adding antibiotics to the animal feed). Cognitive defenses emerged when adolescents experienced cognitive dissonance or a threat to the sense of freedom of decision and autonomy. Our analyzes show that students used irrational arguments for selling fast food in the school canteen firstly because they felt a threat to their autonomy and self-establishment of their value system. The arguments referred to the basic tasks of adolescence, which are achieving autonomy and identity (Erikson 1994; Cicchetti and Rogosch 2002), in this case through independent dietary choices. Young people's decisions, including anti-health behaviors, have a specific function, as they can serve to achieve significant development goals during adolescence (Author 2017 ; Bonino et al. 2005), if they cannot fulfill development tasks in another way (Jessor 1991; Jessor et al. 1998). Secondly, irrational arguments were used to protect their own self-esteem in a situation of cognitive dissonance, when young people knew that they were engaging in anti-health behaviors in their lives but were looking for arguments to support their bad choices. So they cited the benefits of eating fast food. It is worth emphasizing that argumentation teaching tends to use socioscientific issues as they are an interesting context for students' arguments because they are conceptually complex and multi-layered, engaging, socially relevant, and require an understanding of the nature of science (Sadler and Dawson 2012 ). Therefore, in order for students to be motivated to discuss, the task should be engaging and interesting for them. Topics that are closer to life and involve authentic choices are often more emotionally engaging (Schworm and Renkl 2007 ). Therefore, not only high-level cognitive processes are important in argumentation, such as reasoning, joint elaboration and negotiation (Asterhan and Schwarz 2016 ; Isohätälä et al. 2018 ), but also argumentation is emotional in nature (Polo, Lund, Plantin and Niccolai, 2016) and may be accompanied by irritation, anxiety, joy, empathy or other affective feelings. Emotions are therefore a natural part of argumentation but intense reactions can be unfavorable (Polo et al. 2016 ; Isohätälä et al. 2018 ). Research on the importance of emotions in argumentation has been analyzed mainly in the context of group interactions and group climate, which may favor or hinder the use of rational arguments (Isohätälä et al. 2018 ). However, research on emotions in argumentation has not been analyzed in terms of the use of cognitive defenses that individuals use when their self-esteem is threatened. Cognitive dissonance refers to a state of psychological discomfort that results from conflicting attitudes or beliefs (Festinger 1957) or from engaging in behaviors that are inconsistent with one's concept of oneself as a decent or reasonable person. This inconsistency causes feelings of mental discomfort. They then attempt to reduce the dissonance experienced by changing one or more inconsistent cognitions, typically the ones least resistant to change (Aronson 2003 ). Cognitive defense is intended to protect an individual's self-esteem(Aronson et al. 2023). So if teenagers know that they are engaging in unhealthy behavior, they will either change their behavior or convince themselves that an unhealthy diet also has benefits. This is consistent with research findings that indicate that dysfunctional beliefs are often associated with anxiety (Fulton et al. 2011 ). This situation occurred in our project, when young people argued about the advantages of eating fast food in order to reduce the anxiety resulting from the knowledge that they are acting to their own detriment and at the same time protect their self-esteem. It is worth emphasizing that research on cognitive dissonance has been conducted for decades mainly in social psychology and also in health education (Freijy and Kothe 2013 ), but the consequences of dissonance have not been sufficiently analyzed in terms of their significance for learning argumentation. Meanwhile, it is known that cognitive dissonance distorts judgments, delays optimal responses and hinders learning (Klein and McColl 2019 ). Research conducted so far clearly shows that, effective argumentation requires prior training. According to Dawson and Venville study's findings, without argumentation instruction, high school students used almost no data or only simple data to support their arguments, and they used mostly intuitive and emotional reasoning, rather than rational reasoning, when making arguments about biotechnology (Dawson and Venville 2009 ). In addition, there are a number of barriers in learning argumentation that should be taken into account when designing classes, for example students low ability level, limited time in class, and teachers' lack of knowledge about how to engage students in argumentation (Sadler 2006 ), or barriers resulting from group processes, such as collective confirmation bias (Sampson et al. 2011 ). Our research indicates another barrier: cognitive distortions resulting from the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Conclusions When constructing arguments, young people approach issues that are close to them, directly affecting them, and requiring their own decisions (such as purchasing fast food in the school cafeteria) differently from those that are more distant and beyond their control (such as the matter of adding antibiotics to animal feed). In the first case, teenagers are more likely to reduce cognitive dissonance, defending own self-esteem as fast food consumers, by denying the harmfulness of fast food and emphasizing their advantages or appealing to the right to choose. Many of their arguments represent a bigger picture of their attitudes, values, or reasoning not strictly based on science. In the second case, students constructed arguments based primarily on science, even if there are some inaccuracies. In cases that do not depend on students’ direct activity (adding antibiotics to feed), the threat to self-esteem does not hinder the construction of arguments; therefore, they are more rational and refer to scientific knowledge. This result may have educational implications for teachers while implementing argumentation in the classroom. Our research shows that when teaching and learning argumentation, cognitive defense should be taken into account and students should discuss cognitive ways of denying the negative consequences of anti-health behaviors. Our research also indicates that when designing argumentation-based tasks, it is essential to align the topic selection with the intended learning goals. If the primary aim is to develop students' scientific reasoning skills, more abstract or less personally relevant topics may be effective. Conversely, if the goal is to enhance students' engagement and interest, it is advisable to begin with topics that they perceive as personally relevant or emotionally resonant. This approach is supported by research on cognitive defense mechanisms, which highlights how personal relevance can influence openness to argument and learning. Declarations Author Contribution E.R. - conceived the idea, performed experiments, analyzed data, and wrote the manuscriptM.K. - performed statistical analysis of the data, participated in the writing processC.P.C. - conceived the idea, analyzed data, participated in the writing processB.J. - conceived the idea, analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript Data Availability The raw data underlying this study were originally collected in paper form and are securely stored in a locked cabinet in the office of the corresponding author. An electronic dataset, prepared in an Excel file and containing all participants’ responses in Polish, is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request References Author. 2017. Acar, O., L. Turkmen, and A. Roychoudhury. 2010. Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education 32(9):1191–1206. 10.1080/09500690902991805 Andrus, M. R., and M. T. Roth. 2002. Health literacy: a review. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy 22(3):282–302. 10.1592/phco.22.5.282.33191 Aronson, E. 1968. Dissonance theory: Progress and problems,[in:] RP , ed. E. Abelson, W. J. Aronson, T. M. McGuir, M. J. Newcomb, P. H. Rosenberg, and Tannenbaum. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Aronson, E. ed. 2003. Readings about the social animal. Macmillan. Aronson, E., T. D. Wilson, S. R. Sommers, E. P. Gould, and N. Lewis. Jr. 2023. Social psychology (11th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson. Asterhan, C., and B. Schwarz. 2016. Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist 51:1–24. 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 Ausubel, D. P. 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bell, P., B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, and M. A. Feder. eds. 2009. Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. National Research Council . Washington, DC: National Academies. https://doi.org/10.17226/12190 Block, L. G., S. A. Grier, T. L. Childers, B. Davis, J. E. J. Ebert, S. Kumanyika, R. N. Laczniak, J. E. Machin, C. M. Motley, and L. Peracchio et al. 2011. From nutrients to nurturance: A conceptual introduction to food well-being. J Public Policy Mark 30:5–13. 10.2307/23209247 Brown, B. A., and K. Ryoo. 2008. Teaching science as a language: A content-first approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45(5):529–553. Chen, L., and S. Xiao. 2021. Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 Christenson, N. 2015. Socioscientific argumentation: Aspects of content and structure (Doctoral dissertation, Karlstads universitet). Availabe at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:806023/fulltext01.pdf downloaded 05.08.2025. Cobb, P., M. Perlwitz, and D. Underwood-Gregg. 1998. Individual construction, mathematical acculturation, and the classroom community. [in]. In Constructivism and education , ed. M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, and J. Garrison. 63–80. New York: Cambridge University Press. Contento, I. R. 2011. Overview of determinants of food choice and dietary change: Implications for nutrition education. Nutrition Education: Linking Research, Theory and Practice , 2nd ed. Jones Bartlett Learn, 176–179. Cooper, J. M. 2007. Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. Cognitive Dissonance , 1–216. Dawson, V. M., and G. Venville. 2009. High school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education 31(11):1421–1445. Dawson, V., and G. Venville. 2013. Introducing High School Biology Students to Argumentation About Socioscientific Issues. Can J Sci Math Techn 13:356–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.845322 Dewey, J. 1913. Interest and effort in education . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Escott-Stump, S. A. 2011. Our nutrition literacy challenge: Making the 2010 dietary guidelines relevant for consumers. Journal Of The American Dietetic Association 111:979. 10.1016/j.jada.2011.05.024 FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2021. Nutrition education. Retrieved from: https://www.fao.org/3/cb7588en/cb7588en.pdf Freijy, T., and E. J. Kothe. 2013. Dissonance-based interventions for health behaviour change: A systematic review. British journal of health psychology 18(2):310–337. 10.1111/bjhp.12035 Fulton, J. J., D. K. Marcus, and T. Merkey. 2011. Irrational health beliefs and health anxiety. Journal Of Clinical Psychology 67:527–538. 10.1002/jclp.20769 Graneheim, U. H., and B. Lundman. 2004. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today 24(2):105–112. 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 Graneheim, U. H., B. M. Lindgren, and B. Lundman. 2017. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper. Nurse Education Today , 56, 29–34. 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002 Högström, P., N. Gericke, J. Wallin, and E. Bergman. 2024. Teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Science & Education 1–44. 10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y Isohätälä, J., P. Näykki, S. Järvelä, and M. J. Baker. 2018. Striking a balance: Socio-emotional processes during argumentation in collaborative learning interaction. Learning Culture and Social Interaction 16:1–19. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003 Jimenez, P. C., A. R. Alred, and J. M. Dauer. 2024, April. Describing undergraduate students’ reasoning and use of evidence during argumentation about socioscientific issues systems. In Frontiers in Education , vol. 9 1371095. Frontiers Media SA. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., and S. Erduran. 2007. Argumentation in science education: An overview.{in}. In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research , 3–27. Springer. Klein, J., and G. McColl. 2019. Cognitive dissonance: how self-protective distortions can undermine clinical judgement. Medical Education 53(12):1178–1186. 10.1111/medu.13938 Kolasa, K. M., A. Peery, N. G. Harris, and K. Shovelin. 2001. Food Literacy Partners Program: A Strategy To Increase Community Food Literacy. Top Clin Nutr 16:1–10. 10.1097/00008486-200116040-00002 Krause, C., K. Sommerhalder, S. Beer-Borst, and T. Abel. 2016. Just a subtle difference? Findings from a systematic review on definitions of nutrition literacy and food literacy. Health Promotion International 33:378–389. 10.1093/heapro/daw084 Lederman, N. G. 2013. Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of research on science education , 831–879. Routledge. McNeill, K. L., R. Katsh-Singer, M. González-Howard, and S. Loper. 2016. Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education 38(12):2026–2046. 10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547 Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences 34(2):57–74. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968 Neuhauser, L., R. Rothschild, and F. M. Rodríguez. 2007. MyPyramid.gov: Assessment of Literacy, Cultural and Linguistic Factors in the USDA Food Pyramid Web Site. Journal Of Nutrition Education And Behavior 39:219–225. 10.1016/j.jneb.2007.03.005 Osborne, J. 2010. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328(5977):463–466. 10.1126/science.1183944 Pérez-Rodrigo, C., and J. Aranceta. 2001. School-based nutrition education: lessons learned and new perspectives. Public health nutrition 4(1a):131–139. 10.1079/phn2000108 Polo, C., K. Lund, and C. Plantin et al. 2016. Group emotions: the social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. Intern J Comput -Support Collab Learn 11:123–156. 10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8 Priniski, S. J., C. A. Hecht, and J. M. Harackiewicz. 2018. Making learning personally meaningful: A new framework for relevance research. The Journal of Experimental Education 86(1):11–29. 10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589 Puig, B., B. B. Torija, and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre. 2012. Argumentation in the classroom: two teaching sequences. Project S-TEAM . Spain: Danύ, Santiago de Compostela. Sadler, T. D. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41:513–536. 10.1002/tea.20009 Sadler, T. D. 2006. Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education 17:323–346. 10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4 Sadler, T. D., and V. M. Dawson. 2012. Socioscientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. In The second international handbook of science education , ed. B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, and C. McRobbie. 799–809. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Sadler, T. D., A. Amirshokoohi, M. Kazempour, and K. M. Allspaw. 2006. Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching 43(4):353–337. 10.1002/tea.20142 Sampson, V., J. Grooms, and J. P. Walker. 2011. Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education 95(2):217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421 Sardag, M., and G. Cakmakci. 2025. Informal Formative Assessment in Argumentation-Based Science Education: A Micro-Analytic Investigation of Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices. Argumentation . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-025-09668-x Schwartz, R. S., N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford. 2004. Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science education 88(4):610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128 Schworm, S., and A. Renkl. 2007. Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(2):285–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285 Silva, P. 2023. Food and nutrition literacy: Exploring the divide between research and practice. Foods 12(14):2751. 10.3390/foods12142751 Simonneaux, L., and J. Simonneaux. 2009. Students' socioscientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cultural Studies of Science Education 4:657–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9141-x Stellefson, M., Z. Wang, and W. Klein. 2006. Effects of cognitive dissonance on intentions to change diet and physical activity among college students. American Journal of Health Studies 21(3/4):219. Synowiec-Piłat, M., A. Pałęga, and M. Jędrzejek. eds. 2017. Promocja zdrowia w działaniu: od teorii do praktyki . Wydawnictwo Eurosystem. Vidgen, H. A., and D. Gallegos. 2014. Defining food literacy and its components. Appetite 76:50–59. 10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.010 Wang, J., and G. A. Buck. 2016. Understanding a high school physics teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education 27(5):577–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9476-1 Zeidler, D. L., and T. D. Sadler. 2023. Exploring and expanding the frontiers of socioscientific issues. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, and J. S. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (1 ed., pp. 899–929) . Routledge. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Argumentation → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7758515","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":526531599,"identity":"2cffd1db-b411-401a-a769-2aeed8f4a627","order_by":0,"name":"Eliza Rybska","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eliza","middleName":"","lastName":"Rybska","suffix":""},{"id":526531600,"identity":"aac94fec-bfce-4b76-b0c8-6c26bd6f0fcf","order_by":1,"name":"Michał Klichowski","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michał","middleName":"","lastName":"Klichowski","suffix":""},{"id":526531601,"identity":"ac7983b6-f68f-471c-9b00-a1326052561b","order_by":2,"name":"Costas P. Constantinou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Cyprus","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Costas","middleName":"P.","lastName":"Constantinou","suffix":""},{"id":526531602,"identity":"3ca72ab0-2c05-4e89-bf88-29b473741dc7","order_by":3,"name":"Barbara Jankowiak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barbara","middleName":"","lastName":"Jankowiak","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-01 10:23:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7758515/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7758515/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-026-09693-4","type":"published","date":"2026-03-09T15:58:17+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93921718,"identity":"6a8e27d4-73bb-4191-a731-10aaefd245ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":182703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Argumentationanonymised.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/e9dc893b5ef0ea331d7d3e3c.docx"},{"id":93922918,"identity":"ec42bbf0-c4f5-4583-847a-d3b129e86e6f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:27","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6334,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4f3c28a318d24c31ab9e936846800f25.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/52995804989a031009cc3a58.json"},{"id":93922936,"identity":"c19a5f31-d7ca-4ca0-a4f4-2f78aefa46cd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:28","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":166830,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4f3c28a318d24c31ab9e936846800f251enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/17d10abf9a72ecce21047f53.xml"},{"id":93922924,"identity":"aa184fce-89c5-4d5c-85e7-e6b7c5609981","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:27","extension":"eps","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":91160,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage1.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/ebbd38fac17da0ac8cdbc54d.eps"},{"id":93921726,"identity":"4a6f7e9d-182c-4e22-afa6-9c0f9f6922c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24320,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/9263ba7c4832999ed386faa8.jpeg"},{"id":93923337,"identity":"fa833337-5d3e-4d94-9acc-7a81012f9246","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 10:05:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":38580,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/9b1997685b02ec1a4dbaadd6.jpeg"},{"id":93922929,"identity":"eea27a37-e787-4608-bec1-90b2a214e1a3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":95140,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/45ee9c9aefb7902e404bc449.jpeg"},{"id":93924211,"identity":"0e17520a-f190-4051-b472-095307ef4511","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 10:13:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1074,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/7814f70d5dcda05205a00aee.jpeg"},{"id":93922933,"identity":"d979e8f5-5a82-42a2-84d6-bf31d5793f6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1074,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/013a51409baaec7cb894a608.jpeg"},{"id":93921732,"identity":"585a85f7-8d2f-4a65-b220-73cd5097fa87","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":26763,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/9056a5167a3be6e32ce0029e.png"},{"id":93921719,"identity":"4afde421-18fd-4007-a348-3d61377b6264","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":56589,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/6c470fce027fab3eea46b3dc.png"},{"id":93922931,"identity":"87791bfc-5b36-4d9a-aed0-bf1d11e65e04","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":42551,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/8c3f51c0893419bdef05b469.jpeg"},{"id":93924602,"identity":"d10e015d-32e6-4d26-81b1-5433d3be71f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 10:21:27","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3906,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/c1437ae8c9aa39b8d153237f.png"},{"id":93921723,"identity":"60265f47-c57c-4172-8880-3dff519fef56","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6474,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/9ffb74e62e4c338db36bad40.png"},{"id":93921736,"identity":"b0399e2e-a4cc-446b-91ec-f4b6457add17","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14981,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/d1c2c07dab7272db0aef0064.png"},{"id":93921730,"identity":"15348b58-8b24-4e77-a35e-ef02b2de29f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":935,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/de41fe14c0a068354ea69e95.png"},{"id":93923340,"identity":"11588a76-2e7e-43aa-b460-59de9eea902b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 10:05:27","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":935,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/f7c07b52cf55df74ed764b76.png"},{"id":93922935,"identity":"b9fdb678-afc7-44a0-8d90-0a2d5e27e192","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:28","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13071,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/412b96b8fb4d3cc68e00a712.png"},{"id":93921733,"identity":"d97d396a-7a75-4f12-95d8-86e2a828bf65","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16290,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/34bc3fa4ef4638dc2aa985ce.png"},{"id":93922934,"identity":"410a53ec-3089-4631-adef-9cfd62702e0b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:57:27","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15651,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinegroupimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/1bd963b0f26d09a7b669a145.png"},{"id":93921738,"identity":"c9862244-cbe4-4bdc-8cb9-24a0c1c7d066","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"xml","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":162081,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4f3c28a318d24c31ab9e936846800f251structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/1789f1b03e0e4d4d4f21de84.xml"},{"id":93921739,"identity":"ef4dbcba-6ca8-4420-807b-1d8a7d9b789b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"html","order_by":21,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":174584,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/2a122ade8ff67fd6c43e2db2.html"},{"id":93921714,"identity":"726d25d3-cffe-4f15-b3db-d90554beec4e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":13178,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTemplate for argument construction given to students during the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/81d0de4b962b3685ca3c6b48.png"},{"id":93921717,"identity":"ba2637d6-98d3-4974-bf64-ade5180f157f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60847,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlowchart representing teaching sequence during the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/07946ba357a306ba17e3640d.png"},{"id":93921715,"identity":"a6137625-3cca-44db-a971-03f66e6e6340","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 09:49:27","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43010,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentage distribution of the evaluation of the arguments in the two themes - selling fast food in schools and adding antibiotics to animal food\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/78383818c0f2525d94f6d082.png"},{"id":93923339,"identity":"4ddd2f60-6d48-44d3-96e0-46c92b692908","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-20 10:05:27","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34845,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScores attained by students’ arguments in Group 1 (scenario: sale of fast food in the school canteen) and Group2 (scenario: use of antibiotics in animal feed)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/451b37cc55ca6c5c2de5521a.png"},{"id":104739346,"identity":"d1831c58-31c7-4486-b9d6-8550ff3349dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-16 16:03:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1967789,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7758515/v1/60bb70d8-6c19-470d-b706-db83488cca7c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Between Rationality and Self-protection: Student-Constructed Arguments on Fast Food Consumption and Antibiotics Overuse as Public Health Issues in Biology Education","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eArgumentation on socio-scientific issues (SSIs) presents a challenge to school students due to their controversial, ill-structured nature, and\u0026mdash;perhaps more importantly\u0026mdash;the complexity and multidisciplinary character of these issues (H\u0026ouml;gstr\u0026ouml;m et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Jimenez et al. 2024). In some cases, the difficulty may stem from a lack of sufficient scientific knowledge, which limits students' ability to reason about SSIs (Christenson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Pedagogical barriers may also play a role; for example, teaching often lacks a strong focus on SSIs and the development of argumentation skills (Acar et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; H\u0026ouml;gstr\u0026ouml;m et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the content of certain SSIs can evoke strong emotions and psychological reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn our study, we compared students' arguments on two different socio-scientific issues that vary in psychological distance: fast-food consumption and the overuse of antibiotics. The results show significant differences in the structure and scientific complexity of the arguments. Interestingly, topics perceived as psychologically closer to students may present additional challenges, revealing self-protective mechanisms in how students justify their behaviors and choices. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the nature of scientific argumentation on socio-scientific issues in school settings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Role of Socio-Scientific Issues (SSIs) in Science Education\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocioscientific issues (SSIs) are not merely theoretical concepts—they are controversial, socially relevant, and real-world problems informed by science and often involving ethical dimensions. These are contemporary scientific topics that can have significant impacts on society and individuals’ lives (Sadler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). As Sadler et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p. 2) note, “Socioscientific issues are usually value-laden, and the juxtaposition of science and ethics can be uncomfortable for scientists, teachers, and students who define science in terms of objectivity.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSSIs often affect students’ communities and everyday lives, making the subject matter more relatable and engaging. Due to their complex nature, they require decision-making at both personal and societal levels, making working with them a challenging yet valuable educational task. These problems typically do not have simple, definitive answers, which makes them ideal for classroom discussions and for developing students' argumentation skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe key goals of introducing SSIs into the classroom include enhancing scientific understanding, fostering citizenship education, enabling informed decision-making, empowering students to participate in debates, equipping them to navigate complexity, and deepening their understanding of the nature of science (Simonneaux and Simonneaux \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). One prominent area of SSI is human health and nutrition. Although considerable research has been conducted on implementing SSIs in classrooms, teaching them effectively in science education remains a persistent challenge (Högström et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Chen and Xiao \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eArgumentation and competence of argumentation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMastering the art of effective argumentation is a skill that, while seemingly innate, requires nurturing to reach its full potential. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (2011) posited that our capacity for reasoning, which encompasses the ability to construct and evaluate arguments, has evolved primarily to enhance communication and, by extension, survival. This skill is of paramount importance for scientists, as the advancement of knowledge in science is heavily dependent on argumentation and critique. Through rigorous examination, scientific endeavors strive to achieve consensus within the community. Science upholds objectivity by actively participating in discourse and argumentation (Osborne \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In line with the recommendation that science education should mirror the nature of science (e.g. Lederman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Schwartz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), argumentation should be a cornerstone of every science lesson, underscoring its significance in the field. Although argumentation is an important skill, it has been demonstrated that students encounter various challenges when constructing arguments. Including basic argumentation skill gap where students often have trouble combining claims and supporting evidence clearly, presenting diverse viewpoints, and understanding what constitutes an argument. Some do not clearly distinguish key components of an argument, such as claims, evidence, and reasoning (Kleemola et al. 2022). In other cases, students’ understanding of complex scientific content can be an obstacle in constructing a scientific argument (Jimenez et al. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching argumentation in a school context often presents a challenge to teachers. Sardag and Cakmakci (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) reported in their research that teachers, while assessing students’ arguments, make implicit or explicit positive and negative assessments, but at the same time avoid explicit assessments and usually provide content feedback, which does not fully support students’ ability to construct arguments. McNeill and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted the problems with teachers’ beliefs and understanding of what constitutes an argument, and the need to incorporate argumentation into science curricula.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eArgumentation on socio-scientific issues can be challenging due to the nature of socio-scientific problems. The complexity and multidisciplinarity are one challenge, since Socio-scientific issues are inherently complex, involving not just scientific content but also posses moral/ethical, social, political, and economic dimensions. SSI problems also present a challenge due to their ill-structured and controversial nature. Problems developed on SSIs are often open-ended and controversial, with no single correct answer. This ambiguity can be challenging for students who are used to textbook problems with clear solutions. The need to navigate conflicting viewpoints and uncertainty requires advanced reasoning and tolerance for ambiguity (Jimenez et.al. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis tension stems from the way traditional school contexts often portray science as a unified body of positivist knowledge—objective, certain, and detached from sociocultural or contextual influences. In contrast, more progressive approaches to science education, particularly those involving SSIs, emphasize a nuanced understanding of science as context-dependent and deeply embedded in social and cultural realities (Zeidler and Sadler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHealth and Nutrition as SSI Contexts\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaintaining good health and eating a healthy diet are crucial for living a long and healthy life. They provide the body with the nutrients it needs to function properly and stay strong. They are also public and socio-scientific issues. At the same time, they are presented in core curricula all over the world. What we consume and how we do it influences our bodies and well-being. Thus, many governmental and academic bodies are interested in the abovementioned topics. The term “health literacy” was constructed, and it was defined as the ability to read, understand, and act on health information. As Andrus and Roth claim health literacy “includes such tasks as reading and comprehending prescription labels, interpreting appointment slips, completing health insurance forms, following instructions for diagnostic tests, and understanding other essential health-related materials required to adequately function as a patient” (2002, p. 283). The U.S. government’s Healthy People 2030 in 2020 has redefined Health literacy as “the degree to which individuals have the ability to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the term' health literacy,' two other related terms were created in the context of the presented work – food literacy and nutrition literacy. Food literacy encompasses a range of interconnected knowledge, skills, and behaviors aimed at understanding, managing, selecting, preparing, and consuming food. Thus, individuals who are food literate are able to contribute to a sustainable food system while considering all social, environmental, economic, political, and cultural factors (Kolasa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Block et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Vidgen and Gallegos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Silva \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Nutrition literacy refers to the extent to which an individual can access, interpret, and comprehend fundamental nutritional guidance and resources to make informed dietary decisions. It encompasses understanding key nutritional principles and possessing the capability to assess, interpret, and utilize nutritional information effectively, including awareness of nutrients and their health implications. Moreover, it entails the ability to acquire, understand, and apply dietary information from diverse outlets, including knowledge of food metabolism, its health effects, and the application of such knowledge in making optimal choices (Krause et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Neuhauser et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Escott-Stump \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Silva \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Taking into account the consequences of illiteracy in all three aspects leading to health problems in society, it is not surprising that the aspect of health education is often raised as an important component of general education. As Pérez-Rodrigo and Aranceta (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) claim, nutrition education is an effective tool in health promotion programs with a focus on the development of healthy eating practices. It is essential to develop a healthy eating habit, as it can influence not only learning abilities but also overall well-being. Dietary patterns play a critical role as a risk factor for numerous diseases, affecting both their development and progression, as well as impacting the treatment process and patients' quality of life. These patterns are closely linked to lifestyle-related diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, obesity, cancer, and diabetes (Synowiec-Piłat et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The nutritional status in many countries demands attention and necessitates proactive measures. Education has emerged as a potential and encouraging avenue for averting future health crises. According to Contento, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), there are three main approaches to nutritional education:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eProviding information about food and nutrition that is backed by scientific research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eShaping dietary behaviors that promote health and well-being\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCreating a physical and social environment that supports motivation and actions aimed at making positive changes in eating habits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementing all three approaches appears to be the most viable strategy. Additionally, it is widely recognized that merely informing individuals or presenting facts alone is insufficient to catalyze changes in human behavior effectively. Also FAO (Nutrition Education 2021) recommends the use of active methods of learning about nutrition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne might assume that a person who is food literate not only knows what to eat and how, but also, in a broader sense, where their food comes from, how it affects their body and health, what one should consider when choosing their food, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eImmediacy and personal relevance as factors that can influence students' learning\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePedagogical research finds an agreement that personal relevance is a crucial factor in achieving meaningful learning. Pedagogues such as Vygotsky, Bruner, and Piaget were among those who claimed that learning, to be effective, requires an active approach. Additionally, sociocultural constructivism based on Vygotsky (1985) holds to the principle of the indissociability of the individual and the environment, asserting that cognitive activity is embedded in an interindividual, cultural, and institutional context. Thus, the construction and validation of learned concepts are both collective and individual activities, and they occur through a process of argumentation within a community (Cobb et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAusubel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e) claimed that the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Brown and Ryoo (2009) argue for the integration of students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds into science teaching to make the content more relatable and comprehensible. In their project, they demonstrated that students who learned to understand phenomena in everyday terms before being taught scientific language developed a more comprehensive understanding of new concepts related to photosynthesis. Bell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) in their report discussed how learning in informal environments, which often builds on familiar contexts and experiences, can effectively enhance science understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersonal relevance is connected with motivation, and Dewey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1913\u003c/span\u003e) formally recognized the potential of personal relevance to motivate students and boost learning, noting that “things indifferent or even repulsive in themselves often become of interest because of assuming relationships and connections of which we were previously unaware” (p. 22).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePriniski et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), in their review, defined relevance as “a personally meaningful connection to the individual.” These authors concluded that relevance is a personally meaningful connection to the individual and can be conceptualized along a continuum of personal meaningfulness, ranging from personal association to personal usefulness and ultimately to identification.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the Framework for K-12 Science Education (2012) by the National Research Council, which underpins the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), highlights the importance of using students' prior knowledge and experiences as a foundation for building new scientific understanding. This framework emphasizes the importance of engaging students in practices that mimic the work of scientists and engineers, beginning with their own observations and questions about the world. These examples reflect the ongoing recognition in science education research that starting from familiar content can significantly enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAim of the study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have chosen two topics related to nutrition: fast food consumption and antibiotic usage, with a specific example of using antibiotics in animal feed. As a learning tool, we have chosen argumentation as a form of interactive dialogue that helps in the construction of scientific knowledge (Kitcher 1988; Jiménez-Aleixandre and Erduran \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Argumentation enables students to utilize information and make evidence-based decisions while constructing an argument (Puig et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The aim of our research is to examine the quality of argumentation and the issues raised by secondary school students when they are required to respond to structured argumentation tasks concerning two different socio-scientific issues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is the quality of written arguments created by high school students when asked to respond to structured argumentation tasks on social-scientific nutrition-related issues?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat issues do high school students raise when they are challenged to respond to a structured argumentation in the tasks on two different socio-scientific nutrition topics that are differentially relevant to their lives and personal decisions?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhether fast food should be available in a school canteen?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhether we should be adding antibiotics to animal feed?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003ch2\u003eTeaching approach\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study involved students attending five different high schools in Poznań. In each high school, two classes participated in the project. Each class had an average of 20 people. All of them were in second grade and studied extended biological courses. Each intervention lasted two teaching hours. Students received individual worksheets on which they were asked to provide answers to given tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll the participants took part in classes focused on argumentation. In the first part of the classes, their personal knowledge about what an argument is and when to use it was activated. Then, fundamental concepts related to the structure of arguments and their role in education and teaching were presented. An example of an argument concerning smoking in public places was presented. Subsequently, students collectively attempted to create an argument regarding the impact of owning a dog on the owner's mood. Further on, they were asked to develop their argument regarding whether it is worth taking a class trip by ship in the Baltic Sea during summer vacation. To support students in building their own argument and fulfilling its structure, they received a worksheet with elements of an argument to be filled in. This template is presented in the figure below (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter independently constructing their arguments, students presented them on a forum. They provided feedback to one another regarding the structure of the arguments, the logical coherence of their statements, and other aspects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe next part of the class was different for the two groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn one group, time was devoted to solving a problem related to fast food consumption. Students received cards with information about research findings and various opinions on the effects of consuming fast food. After reviewing the materials, a brief discussion took place regarding the potential benefits and drawbacks of consuming such products. Part of the discussion focused on which information could be considered credible and which less credible or potentially manipulative (e.g., a hypothetical statement from a marketing executive of a well-known fast-food restaurant). The final part of the class was about students individually creating an argument in response to the problem question: \"Should fast food be sold in schools?\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe other group was exposed to the topic of antibiotics, including problems related to their overuse in everyday life and the consequences for the environment. This included the overuse of antibiotics in feed for farm animals. Students received cards with information about research findings and various opinions on the effects of antibiotic overuse. After reviewing the materials, a brief discussion took place regarding the potential benefits and drawbacks of using antibiotics in feed for farm animals daily. Part of the discussion focused on which information could be considered credible and which less credible or potentially manipulative (e.g., a hypothetical statement from a marketing executive of a supermarket or a farmer). The final part of the class was about students individually creating an argument in response to the problem question: \"Should we keep adding antibiotics to animal feed?\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn both cases, the class concluded with a discussion where students exchanged the arguments they had prepared. The educational intervention aimed to create conditions in which all three assumptions described by Contento (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) are met. We provided students with information about the effects of consuming fast food in the first group, and we created conditions for choosing the environment (whether fast food should be sold in the school cafeteria). The second group received information about the effects of adding antibiotics to animal feed daily, and we created conditions for choosing the environment (whether antibiotics should be added to animal feed). Through discussion, we also aimed to establish a physical as well as a social environment where it would be possible to shape students' motivation for engaging in health-promoting actions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe flow chart representing the teaching sequence is presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch design and ethics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The XXX project protocol was approved by the ethical committee of XXX University. Written consent was obtained from participants and parents/legal guardians to participate in the project. All content covered during the project was consistent with the biology core curriculum in Poland. The obtained results of the study are in no way connected with the obtained personal data (from the consent form for participation and parents/legal guardians in the study) and are presented in a way that makes it impossible to identify the people participating in the study. Only Prof. XXX has access to the consent of the participants/participants and parents/legal guardians, and therefore their personal data. Protection of this data will be in accordance with the principles of General Data Protection Regulation enshrined in the Act of May 10, 2018 on the Protection of Personal Data (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1000).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eData collection\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study involved 249 students from Polish schools aged 14–16. Of these high school students, 139 participated in an intervention about fast food, and 110 in an intervention about the use of antibiotics. All the participants took part in classes focused on argumentation. Firstly, their personal knowledge about what an argument is was activated. Then, fundamental concepts related to the structure of arguments were presented. An example of an argument concerning smoking in public places was presented. Subsequently, students collectively attempted to create an argument regarding the impact of owning a dog on the owner's mood. Further on, they were asked to create their own argument regarding whether it is worth going on a class trip by ship in the Baltic Sea during the summer vacation. After independently constructing their arguments, students presented them on a forum and provided each other with feedback regarding the structure of the arguments, the logical coherence of their statements, and so on. The next part of the class was devoted to presenting information related to fast food consumption or antibiotics. The final part of the class was about students individually creating an argument in response to the problem question: \"Should fast food be sold in schools?\" or “Should we keep adding antibiotics to animal feed?”. The class concluded with a discussion where students exchanged their prepared arguments. Their answers were collected and analyzed. Worksheets with no scientific argument provided were excluded from the analysis. All worksheets with even partial responses wwere analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWritten arguments were assessed using a rubric from Schen (2013). Each written argument was assessed, and for claim and Counterclaim, the maximum number of points that could be received was 2; for evidence, reasoning, and rebuttal, the maximum number of points was 3. Together, the maximum number of points for that whole argument possible to achieve was 13. Then, due to the lack of normal distribution of the data, a U Mann-Whitney (JAMOVI) test was performed to compare the quantitative aspects of argument assessment between the two groups (those participating in the fast-food intervention vs. those participating in the antibiotics intervention).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA qualitative exploratory analysis was also performed. To discern qualities in students’ reasoning revealed in their arguments, we used the framework of qualitative content analysis (QCA; Graneheim and Lundman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Graneheim et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). We performed a QCA in four steps, including 1) discerning meaning units from students' answers, 2) condensing codes, 3) grouping codes into bigger categories - creating categories, and 4) formulating themes across students’ discussions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003ch2\u003eQuantitative analysis of the quality of an argument\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of students\u0026rsquo; written arguments by applying the rubric proposed by Schen (2013) shows us that, on average, students\u0026apos; arguments scored higher on the topic of antibiotic use in animal food. The percentage distribution of the evaluation of the arguments in the two themes\u0026mdash;selling fast food in schools (Group 1) and adding antibiotics to animal food (Group 2) \u0026mdash; is shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. The results from the quantitative assessment of written students\u0026apos; arguments are presented in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, showing the average number of points received by students in both groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuantitative analysis of students\u0026rsquo; written arguments in both topics \u0026ndash; average number of points for each element of an argument.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAspect of an argument\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage number of points on Fast food intervention argument\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage number of points on the Antibiotics intervention argument\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClaim (max 2 points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvidence (max 3 points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReasoning (max 3 points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCounterclaim (max 2 points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRebuttal (max 3 points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall (max 13 points)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5,43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6,44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U Mann-Whitney test showed that overall written arguments among the two groups differ, and that difference was statistically significant. In particular, elements of the analysis showed that the two groups exhibited statistically significant differences in the aspects of claim and reasoning. A trend was also visible in evidence of written arguments (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis of the quality of the written arguments in both groups \u0026ndash; results of the U Mann-Whitney test.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAspect of an argument\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eU Mann Witney\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClaim\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5709\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;,001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvidence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6674\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,060\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReasoning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6099\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCounterclaim\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,206\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRebuttal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7623\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,968\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eQualitative analysis of the written arguments\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour steps of the qualitative analysis framework (Graneheim \u0026amp; Lundman \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) were applied and are presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. In both analyzed groups, we have distinguished three main thematic groups:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) Personal aspects revealing personal relevance, values and defense mechanisms\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) Socio-cultural aspects revealing economical, sociological or cultural aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4) Some arguments were also categorized to a non-sensical group (here students did not provide any reasoning, some of them just listed the diseases, or described what is in the fast food or antibiotics, or possessed significant scientific misconceptions, or were illogical)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e represents a detailed example of qualitative analysis of reasoning in arguments and counterarguments provided by students on the topic of fast food consumption at school. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e represents a detailed example of qualitative analysis of reasoning in arguments and counterarguments provided by students on the topic of adding antibiotics to animal feed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExamples of QCA coding on the topic of fast food consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Meaning units\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Codes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Categories\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Themes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA ban on selling fast food in schools would limit my freedom and the freedom to choose whether I want to be healthy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestriction of freedom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting freedom of choice is a threat to autonomy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal aspects revealing personal relevance, values, and defense mechanisms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument in favour of selling fast food in school canteens\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuch food is eagerly bought by young people, which will increase profits, and it is fast, which will increase the convenience of the school shop\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eor Fast food and sweets make you happy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue-related, hierarchy of values \u0026ndash; gives happiness, and this is most important.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting freedom of choice is a threat to the autonomous choice of the hierarchy of values\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efast food in small quantities is not so harmful\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur diet should be based on a variety of products; no food will harm us if consumed in moderation. Prohibiting ourselves from eating can lead to eating disorders.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall amount is not that bad, we need calories, we need sugar, and fat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimizing harmfulness: arguments reducing cognitive dissonance maintain anti-health behaviors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(they are unhealthy)\u0026hellip;The most important thing is a person\u0026apos;s health, consuming such products can contribute to many illnesses and memory difficulties, we can find substitutes that are just as tasty but healthier.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnhealthy, negatively affects our body/ unhealthy, and health is a value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObesity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal aspects revealing the relevance of the topic and values\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument against selling fast food in school canteens\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFast food should not be sold at school because it negatively affects our health and brain function.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeurodegenerative diseases, Focusing on problems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe brain sees it as a treat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrain-related\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument against selling fast food in the school canteen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efast food is rich in saturated fats and carbohydrates, the high intake of which can lead to difficulties in remembering and learning, which is very difficult for children, and is also quickly absorbed, causing insulin spikes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlood glucose spikes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInsulin spikes, Insulin problems, Pancreatic problems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlucose-insulin loop\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt contains a lot of fatty acidas and carbohydrates. After a short time of feeling better with lots of energy, a large amount of insulin is secreted, which quickly and effectively lowers sugar levels, resulting in a feeling of fatigue.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMany fats, Sugar, High in calories, high in energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly processed food, Quality of food\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIngredients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eexcessive consumption of fast food is associated with negative health consequences, e.g. overweight, obesity, cardiovascular disease, the development of chronic diseases. Sugars cause sugar spikes and saturated fats cause cholesterol deposition, which builds up in the blood vessels - atherosclerosis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCirculatory system problems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeart problems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eatherosclerosis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ethey will stay with us\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObesity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiseases\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewhen we don\u0026apos;t have much time during the day it is easier to reach for something quick and warm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShort breaks at school\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- lack of time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epresent everywhere\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- parents do not have money to pay for a doctor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-cultural aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument in favour of selling fast food in school canteens\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFast food is unhealthy, and schools should not set a bad example of nutrition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA school is a place that is supposed to set the best possible example for students, and selling fast food would support an unhealthy lifestyle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool as a template\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchools should not promote bad example, attitudes are shaped at schools\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRules must be obey\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBad example\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponsibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeed for education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAffects learning/ focusing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFast and cheap,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool related - attitudes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-cultural aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument against selling fast food in the school canteen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe can prepare tasty food at home as well and healthy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eself-made food\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganizational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEven if you don\u0026apos;t have time, you can cook the meal at home and take it with you\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of time, do it in advance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganizational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe number of obese young people has been increasing in recent years, and this is becoming a widespread social problem, because soon there will be no athletes and the healthcare system will no longer be able to cope.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealthcare system problems, social problems, and lack of athletes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsequences for society\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFast food is ble \u0026ndash; it can lead to diseases and other problems. We don\u0026rsquo;t want to make children addicted to this. There are also data and statistics showing food overproduction and a lack of self-discipline.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of connection\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Word salad\u0026rdquo; lack of logical connections between sentences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNonsensical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAn excess of sugar causes insulin spikes because we eat a lot of calories.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMisunderstanding of the connection between calories, glucose and insulin\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMisunderstanding of scientific concepts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNonsensical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExamples of QCA coding on the topic of antibiotic usage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Meaning units\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Codes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Categories\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Themes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewere used prophylactically in livestock farms, they should no longer be used because they were not withdrawn without reason, their use was only to provide high benefits to livestock farmers who cannot allow the losses caused by slaughtering animals that have contracted the disease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReducing the amount of antibiotics in feed has a positive impact on consumer health - fewer chemicals in food\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehuman health paramount, ethics of farming, human ethics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValues/opinions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal aspects revealing the relevance of the topic and values\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument in favour of adding antibiotics to animal feed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe come into contact with a lot of bacteria every day, yet we don\u0026apos;t need to take antibiotics every day.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the past, antibiotics did not exist and people lived\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewe don\u0026apos;t take it so we\u0026apos;re fine, there used to be no antibiotics, other drugs could be given (e.g. for immunity), many farmers don\u0026apos;t give them and nothing happens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommon sense thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ethe financial losses and the future of human health are incomparable (human health is more important), and we may end up with no effective antibiotics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVision of no meat, Vision of no time, Vision of no medicines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThread/ fears\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis causes antibiotic resistance. As a result, there are more and more dangerous bacteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eantibiotics discharged into the environment with faeces allow bacteria in the environment to become resistant to them, thus increasing the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, making it a problem in the future bacteria can exchange plasmids with each other carrying drug-resistant genes, bacteria can exchange vertically making it possible to acquire drug-resistant genes in a single generation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThrough constant additions, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. By making bacteria resistant to antibiotics, our humanity will be able to have problems with diseases and their cure in the future and kill\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eantibiotic resistance, i.e. the resistance of bacteria to a particular antibiotic, is caused by their repeated exposure to the same antibiotic. This results in a lack of sensitivity of the bacteria to the antibiotic, so that the bacteria will survive and multiply as well as exchange antibiotic-resistant plasmids with other bacteria, causing the multiplication of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in general, which poses a particular threat to animal health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eenvironmental effects, health effects e.g. human immunity, microbiome, lack of medicines in the future, meat with antibiotics, meat with bacteria, accumulation of antibiotics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe effects of antibiotic overuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument against adding antibiotics to animal feed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eprolonged use of antibiotics metaphylactically leads to an inability to fight these drug-resistant bacteria, besides which, in the case of an outbreak in an animal or group of animals, a veterinarian may prescribe an antibiotic to combat the disease when it is necessary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eantibiotics only for sick animals- vet control\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeed for control\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe chronic use of antibiotics can trigger resistance in bacteria that will be in the animal\u0026apos;s environment or that will infect the animal, with the result that antibiotics will no longer help animals to fight infections from which human food products are produced. \u003cspan class=\"Underline\"\u003eThere is a risk that resistant bacteria developed in the animal\u0026apos;s body can infect the human body\u003c/span\u003e, causing an illness that is difficult to control\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eanimal-to-human transfer of bacteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResistance to antibiotics of bacteria and its environmental consequences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelations human-bacteria-environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eif the antibiotics stop working we will invent new ones\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eimprovement of antibiotics new antibiotics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe potential of biology\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument in favour of adding antibiotics to animal feed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe should add antibiotics to feed because it weakens the bacteria and our immune system cannot cope with them\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ean antibiotic is a medicine,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emisconception \u0026ndash; humans might not fight bacteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNature of antibiotics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument in Favour of adding antibiotics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMisconception\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAntibiotics in feed prevent disease in animals because they will kill bacteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOr Antibiotics annihilate the bacterial structure by their action and prevent the disease from continuing. without the addition of antibiotics, animals will suffer and die from bacteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecreasing immunological resistance of animal\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- killing bacteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eanimal addiction to it, epidemics, animal diseases- deaths of animals- suffering of animals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth implications\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eimproved sanitation in mass animal farms would reduce the likelihood of epidemics and improve the environment, (so antibiotics do not need to be used)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esanitary conditions on farms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCosts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-cultural aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument against adding antibiotics to animal feed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eif the EU has banned it, it means that there was a reason to do so\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEU regulation/ law\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrinciples\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-cultural aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument against adding antibiotics to animal feed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestricting antibiotics will cause financial losses through animal extinction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ethe exclusion of antibiotics can cause epidemics in livestock and lead to large financial losses for farmers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinancial costs for farmers, benefits to humans (as a value for some), compensation for farmers, more expensive meat/higher food prices\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCosts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-cultural aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArgument in Favour of adding antibiotics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIf animals consume antibiotics, bacteria could become resistant, and there might be fewer of them. This could also affect water and plants.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMisunderstanding of the resistance of bacteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMisunderstanding science\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNonsensical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAntibiotics kill bacteria, so without them they will get sick\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConcepts are not related logically\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of connection\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNonsensical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the past, antibiotics didn\u0026rsquo;t exist, and people still lived\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of understanding of the scientific concept\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommon-sense reasoning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNonsensical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost of the arguments written by students were assigned to more than one category, so in the analysis we assumed that all of them would be listed. Hence, almost every argument is assigned to several categories. for example:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAgainst: \u0026ldquo;fast food is rich in saturated fats and carbohydrates, the high intake of which can lead to difficulties in remembering and learning, which is very difficult for children, and is also quickly absorbed, causing insulin spikes.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCategories: Personal content knowledge: Ingredients; brain related, Glucose-insuline loop\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the analysis of the qualitative part, there are therefore more responses in thematic groups than the number of participants due to the classification of an argument (including a counterargument) into more than one thematic group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e represents the distribution of thematic groups in analyzed arguments in both groups of students. The analysis shows the distribution of thematic groups for reasoning and for counter-arguments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"char\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe distribution of thematic groups in analyzed arguments in both groups of students - fast food and antibiotics. The numbers in the table indicate the following thematic codes: 1- Personal aspects revealing personal relevance and values; 2 - Scientific aspects revealing personal content knowledge aspects, 3 - Socio-cultural aspects revealing economical, sociological or cultural aspects, 4 - Non-sensical/common-sense, and 0 - indicates no answer provided.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1 \u0026ndash; fast food in school canteen case\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 2 \u0026ndash; antibiotics in animal farms case\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code used in reasoning (warrant and backing)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code used in counterargument\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of cases\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code used in reasoning (warrant and backing)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code used in counterargument\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of cases\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSUM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e139\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e represents the total number of assigned thematic codes to the students\u0026apos; arguments and the percentages of their appearance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssigned thematic codes to the students\u0026apos; arguments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFast foods \u0026ndash; number of cases where the arguments included thematic code (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;139)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAntibiotics \u0026ndash; number of cases where the arguments included thematic code (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;110)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code 1 \u0026ndash; personal relevance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e119\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;21%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code 2 \u0026ndash; scientific reasoning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code 3 -socio-economical aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21,60%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;46,40%\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic code 4 \u0026ndash; nonsensical answer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;7,20%\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23,60%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e indicate that, when constructing arguments for both topics, students used scientific content quite often. However, students who argued against or in favour of the sale of fast food in school canteens used significantly more elements related to personal relevance compared to those addressing the use of antibiotics in animal farming. In contrast, the latter group was more likely to include socio-economic arguments. Moreover, the number of nonsensical responses was notably higher in this group, suggesting that the complexity of the scientific content may have posed a greater challenge for them.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the presented research, the analysis of students' written responses suggests that the topic of discussion matters to the extent that it might influence the quality of the produced arguments. Using Toulmin\u0026rsquo;s argumentation pattern to assess the instruments for argument aspects and quality allowed us to compare two groups \u0026ndash; we can assume that the topic matters. It is worth mentioning that the quality of students' written arguments in this research was average and higher than college science majors when exposed to a task related to evolution (Schen 2013). It can also be explained by the way the presented research was designed. Students in our research received a rich scaffolding on how argument looks like and on the topic they were supposed to argue about.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough similar themes were raised in both groups (content-related and socio-cultural) \u0026ndash; the distribution was not even, a richer and bigger variety of codes and categories were observed in the topic related to fast food.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the students' arguments indicates that the topic related to their personal decisions and close to their lives (eating fast food in the school canteen) resulted in the appearance of arguments indicating cognitive defense. It was different in the case of a topic that is distant to them and on which they do not make decisions on a daily basis (adding antibiotics to the animal feed). Cognitive defenses emerged when adolescents experienced cognitive dissonance or a threat to the sense of freedom of decision and autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analyzes show that students used irrational arguments for selling fast food in the school canteen firstly because they felt a threat to their autonomy and self-establishment of their value system. The arguments referred to the basic tasks of adolescence, which are achieving autonomy and identity (Erikson 1994; Cicchetti and Rogosch 2002), in this case through independent dietary choices. Young people's decisions, including anti-health behaviors, have a specific function, as they can serve to achieve significant development goals during adolescence (Author \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Bonino et al. 2005), if they cannot fulfill development tasks in another way (Jessor 1991; Jessor et al. 1998).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondly, irrational arguments were used to protect their own self-esteem in a situation of cognitive dissonance, when young people knew that they were engaging in anti-health behaviors in their lives but were looking for arguments to support their bad choices. So they cited the benefits of eating fast food. It is worth emphasizing that argumentation teaching tends to use socioscientific issues as they are an interesting context for students' arguments because they are conceptually complex and multi-layered, engaging, socially relevant, and require an understanding of the nature of science (Sadler and Dawson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, in order for students to be motivated to discuss, the task should be engaging and interesting for them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTopics that are closer to life and involve authentic choices are often more emotionally engaging (Schworm and Renkl \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, not only high-level cognitive processes are important in argumentation, such as reasoning, joint elaboration and negotiation (Asterhan and Schwarz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Isoh\u0026auml;t\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), but also argumentation is emotional in nature (Polo, Lund, Plantin and Niccolai, 2016) and may be accompanied by irritation, anxiety, joy, empathy or other affective feelings. Emotions are therefore a natural part of argumentation but intense reactions can be unfavorable (Polo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Isoh\u0026auml;t\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Research on the importance of emotions in argumentation has been analyzed mainly in the context of group interactions and group climate, which may favor or hinder the use of rational arguments (Isoh\u0026auml;t\u0026auml;l\u0026auml; et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, research on emotions in argumentation has not been analyzed in terms of the use of cognitive defenses that individuals use when their self-esteem is threatened.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive dissonance refers to a state of psychological discomfort that results from conflicting attitudes or beliefs (Festinger 1957) or from engaging in behaviors that are inconsistent with one's concept of oneself as a decent or reasonable person. This inconsistency causes feelings of mental discomfort. They then attempt to reduce the dissonance experienced by changing one or more inconsistent cognitions, typically the ones least resistant to change (Aronson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Cognitive defense is intended to protect an individual's self-esteem(Aronson et al. 2023). So if teenagers know that they are engaging in unhealthy behavior, they will either change their behavior or convince themselves that an unhealthy diet also has benefits. This is consistent with research findings that indicate that dysfunctional beliefs are often associated with anxiety (Fulton et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This situation occurred in our project, when young people argued about the advantages of eating fast food in order to reduce the anxiety resulting from the knowledge that they are acting to their own detriment and at the same time protect their self-esteem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is worth emphasizing that research on cognitive dissonance has been conducted for decades mainly in social psychology and also in health education (Freijy and Kothe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), but the consequences of dissonance have not been sufficiently analyzed in terms of their significance for learning argumentation. Meanwhile, it is known that cognitive dissonance distorts judgments, delays optimal responses and hinders learning (Klein and McColl \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch conducted so far clearly shows that, effective argumentation requires prior training. According to Dawson and Venville study's findings, without argumentation instruction, high school students used almost no data or only simple data to support their arguments, and they used mostly intuitive and emotional reasoning, rather than rational reasoning, when making arguments about biotechnology (Dawson and Venville \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, there are a number of barriers in learning argumentation that should be taken into account when designing classes, for example students low ability level, limited time in class, and teachers' lack of knowledge about how to engage students in argumentation (Sadler \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), or barriers resulting from group processes, such as collective confirmation bias (Sampson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Our research indicates another barrier: cognitive distortions resulting from the reduction of cognitive dissonance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhen constructing arguments, young people approach issues that are close to them, directly affecting them, and requiring their own decisions (such as purchasing fast food in the school cafeteria) differently from those that are more distant and beyond their control (such as the matter of adding antibiotics to animal feed). In the first case, teenagers are more likely to reduce cognitive dissonance, defending own self-esteem as fast food consumers, by denying the harmfulness of fast food and emphasizing their advantages or appealing to the right to choose. Many of their arguments represent a bigger picture of their attitudes, values, or reasoning not strictly based on science. In the second case, students constructed arguments based primarily on science, even if there are some inaccuracies. In cases that do not depend on students\u0026rsquo; direct activity (adding antibiotics to feed), the threat to self-esteem does not hinder the construction of arguments; therefore, they are more rational and refer to scientific knowledge. This result may have educational implications for teachers while implementing argumentation in the classroom. Our research shows that when teaching and learning argumentation, cognitive defense should be taken into account and students should discuss cognitive ways of denying the negative consequences of anti-health behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur research also indicates that when designing argumentation-based tasks, it is essential to align the topic selection with the intended learning goals. If the primary aim is to develop students' scientific reasoning skills, more abstract or less personally relevant topics may be effective. Conversely, if the goal is to enhance students' engagement and interest, it is advisable to begin with topics that they perceive as personally relevant or emotionally resonant. This approach is supported by research on cognitive defense mechanisms, which highlights how personal relevance can influence openness to argument and learning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eE.R. - conceived the idea, performed experiments, analyzed data, and wrote the manuscriptM.K. - performed statistical analysis of the data, participated in the writing processC.P.C. - conceived the idea, analyzed data, participated in the writing processB.J. - conceived the idea, analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe raw data underlying this study were originally collected in paper form and are securely stored in a locked cabinet in the office of the corresponding author. An electronic dataset, prepared in an Excel file and containing all participants\u0026rsquo; responses in Polish, is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor. 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcar, O., L. Turkmen, and A. Roychoudhury. 2010. Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e 32(9):1191\u0026ndash;1206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/09500690902991805\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09500690902991805\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrus, M. R., and M. T. Roth. 2002. Health literacy: a review. \u003cem\u003ePharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy\u003c/em\u003e 22(3):282\u0026ndash;302. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1592/phco.22.5.282.33191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1592/phco.22.5.282.33191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAronson, E. 1968. \u003cem\u003eDissonance theory: Progress and problems,[in:] RP\u003c/em\u003e, ed. E. Abelson, W. J. Aronson, T. M. McGuir, M. J. Newcomb, P. H. Rosenberg, and Tannenbaum. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAronson, E. ed. 2003. Readings about the social animal. Macmillan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAronson, E., T. D. Wilson, S. R. Sommers, E. P. Gould, and N. Lewis. \u003cem\u003eJr. 2023. Social psychology\u003c/em\u003e (11th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsterhan, C., and B. Schwarz. 2016. Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e 51:1\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAusubel, D. P. 1968. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology: A Cognitive View\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBell, P., B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, and M. A. Feder. eds. 2009. \u003cem\u003eLearning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. National Research Council\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: National Academies. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17226/12190\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17226/12190\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlock, L. G., S. A. Grier, T. L. Childers, B. Davis, J. E. J. Ebert, S. Kumanyika, R. N. Laczniak, J. E. Machin, C. M. Motley, and L. Peracchio et al. 2011. From nutrients to nurturance: A conceptual introduction to food well-being. \u003cem\u003eJ Public Policy Mark\u003c/em\u003e 30:5\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2307/23209247\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/23209247\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown, B. A., and K. Ryoo. 2008. Teaching science as a language: A content-first approach to science teaching. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Science Teaching\u003c/em\u003e 45(5):529\u0026ndash;553.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, L., and S. Xiao. 2021. Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research Review\u003c/em\u003e 32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChristenson, N. 2015. \u003cem\u003eSocioscientific argumentation: Aspects of content and structure\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Karlstads universitet). Availabe at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:806023/fulltext01.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:806023/fulltext01.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e downloaded 05.08.2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCobb, P., M. Perlwitz, and D. Underwood-Gregg. 1998. Individual construction, mathematical acculturation, and the classroom community. [in]. In \u003cem\u003eConstructivism and education\u003c/em\u003e, ed. M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, and J. Garrison. 63\u0026ndash;80. New York: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eContento, I. R. 2011. Overview of determinants of food choice and dietary change: Implications for nutrition education. \u003cem\u003eNutrition Education: Linking Research, Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 2nd ed. Jones Bartlett Learn, 176\u0026ndash;179.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooper, J. M. 2007. Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Dissonance\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;216.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDawson, V. M., and G. Venville. 2009. High school students\u0026rsquo; informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e 31(11):1421\u0026ndash;1445.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDawson, V., and G. Venville. 2013. Introducing High School Biology Students to Argumentation About Socioscientific Issues. \u003cem\u003eCan J Sci Math Techn\u003c/em\u003e 13:356\u0026ndash;372. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.845322\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14926156.2013.845322\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDewey, J. 1913. \u003cem\u003eInterest and effort in education\u003c/em\u003e. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEscott-Stump, S. A. 2011. Our nutrition literacy challenge: Making the 2010 dietary guidelines relevant for consumers. \u003cem\u003eJournal Of The American Dietetic Association\u003c/em\u003e 111:979. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jada.2011.05.024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jada.2011.05.024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2021. Nutrition education. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/3/cb7588en/cb7588en.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/3/cb7588en/cb7588en.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreijy, T., and E. J. Kothe. 2013. Dissonance-based interventions for health behaviour change: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eBritish journal of health psychology\u003c/em\u003e 18(2):310\u0026ndash;337. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/bjhp.12035\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/bjhp.12035\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFulton, J. J., D. K. Marcus, and T. Merkey. 2011. Irrational health beliefs and health anxiety. \u003cem\u003eJournal Of Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 67:527\u0026ndash;538. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/jclp.20769\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jclp.20769\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraneheim, U. H., and B. Lundman. 2004. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. \u003cem\u003eNurse education today\u003c/em\u003e 24(2):105\u0026ndash;112. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraneheim, U. H., B. M. Lindgren, and B. Lundman. 2017. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper. \u003cem\u003eNurse Education Today\u003c/em\u003e, 56, 29\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eH\u0026ouml;gstr\u0026ouml;m, P., N. Gericke, J. Wallin, and E. Bergman. 2024. Teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eScience \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsoh\u0026auml;t\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;, J., P. N\u0026auml;ykki, S. J\u0026auml;rvel\u0026auml;, and M. J. Baker. 2018. Striking a balance: Socio-emotional processes during argumentation in collaborative learning interaction. \u003cem\u003eLearning Culture and Social Interaction\u003c/em\u003e 16:1\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJimenez, P. C., A. R. Alred, and J. M. Dauer. 2024, April. Describing undergraduate students\u0026rsquo; reasoning and use of evidence during argumentation about socioscientific issues systems. In \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 9 1371095. Frontiers Media SA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJim\u0026eacute;nez-Aleixandre, M. P., and S. Erduran. 2007. Argumentation in science education: An overview.{in}. In \u003cem\u003eArgumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research\u003c/em\u003e, 3\u0026ndash;27. Springer.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlein, J., and G. McColl. 2019. Cognitive dissonance: how self-protective distortions can undermine clinical judgement. \u003cem\u003eMedical Education\u003c/em\u003e 53(12):1178\u0026ndash;1186. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/medu.13938\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/medu.13938\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKolasa, K. M., A. Peery, N. G. Harris, and K. Shovelin. 2001. Food Literacy Partners Program: A Strategy To Increase Community Food Literacy. \u003cem\u003eTop Clin Nutr\u003c/em\u003e 16:1\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1097/00008486-200116040-00002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/00008486-200116040-00002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrause, C., K. Sommerhalder, S. Beer-Borst, and T. Abel. 2016. Just a subtle difference? Findings from a systematic review on definitions of nutrition literacy and food literacy. \u003cem\u003eHealth Promotion International\u003c/em\u003e 33:378\u0026ndash;389. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/heapro/daw084\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/heapro/daw084\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLederman, N. G. 2013. Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of research on science education\u003c/em\u003e, 831\u0026ndash;879. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcNeill, K. L., R. Katsh-Singer, M. Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Howard, and S. Loper. 2016. Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e 38(12):2026\u0026ndash;2046. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral and brain sciences\u003c/em\u003e 34(2):57\u0026ndash;74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1017/S0140525X10000968\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0140525X10000968\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeuhauser, L., R. Rothschild, and F. M. Rodr\u0026iacute;guez. 2007. MyPyramid.gov: Assessment of Literacy, Cultural and Linguistic Factors in the USDA Food Pyramid Web Site. \u003cem\u003eJournal Of Nutrition Education And Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 39:219\u0026ndash;225. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jneb.2007.03.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jneb.2007.03.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsborne, J. 2010. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e 328(5977):463\u0026ndash;466. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1126/science.1183944\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.1183944\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez-Rodrigo, C., and J. Aranceta. 2001. School-based nutrition education: lessons learned and new perspectives. \u003cem\u003ePublic health nutrition\u003c/em\u003e 4(1a):131\u0026ndash;139. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1079/phn2000108\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1079/phn2000108\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePolo, C., K. Lund, and C. Plantin et al. 2016. Group emotions: the social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. \u003cem\u003eIntern J Comput -Support Collab Learn\u003c/em\u003e 11:123\u0026ndash;156. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePriniski, S. J., C. A. Hecht, and J. M. Harackiewicz. 2018. Making learning personally meaningful: A new framework for relevance research. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Experimental Education\u003c/em\u003e 86(1):11\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePuig, B., B. B. Torija, and M. P. Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Aleixandre. 2012. \u003cem\u003eArgumentation in the classroom: two teaching sequences. Project S-TEAM\u003c/em\u003e. Spain: Danύ, Santiago de Compostela.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadler, T. D. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Science Teaching\u003c/em\u003e 41:513\u0026ndash;536. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/tea.20009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/tea.20009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadler, T. D. 2006. Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Science Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e 17:323\u0026ndash;346. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadler, T. D., and V. M. Dawson. 2012. Socioscientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. In \u003cem\u003eThe second international handbook of science education\u003c/em\u003e, ed. B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, and C. McRobbie. 799\u0026ndash;809. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadler, T. D., A. Amirshokoohi, M. Kazempour, and K. M. Allspaw. 2006. Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching\u003c/em\u003e 43(4):353\u0026ndash;337. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/tea.20142\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/tea.20142\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSampson, V., J. Grooms, and J. P. Walker. 2011. Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. \u003cem\u003eScience Education\u003c/em\u003e 95(2):217\u0026ndash;257. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sce.20421\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSardag, M., and G. Cakmakci. 2025. Informal Formative Assessment in Argumentation-Based Science Education: A Micro-Analytic Investigation of Teachers\u0026rsquo; Pedagogical Practices. \u003cem\u003eArgumentation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-025-09668-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10503-025-09668-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwartz, R. S., N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford. 2004. Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. \u003cem\u003eScience education\u003c/em\u003e 88(4):610\u0026ndash;645. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sce.10128\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchworm, S., and A. Renkl. 2007. Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 99(2):285\u0026ndash;296. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilva, P. 2023. Food and nutrition literacy: Exploring the divide between research and practice. \u003cem\u003eFoods\u003c/em\u003e 12(14):2751. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/foods12142751\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/foods12142751\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimonneaux, L., and J. Simonneaux. 2009. Students' socioscientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eCultural Studies of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e 4:657\u0026ndash;687. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9141-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11422-008-9141-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStellefson, M., Z. Wang, and W. Klein. 2006. Effects of cognitive dissonance on intentions to change diet and physical activity among college students. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Health Studies\u003c/em\u003e 21(3/4):219.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSynowiec-Piłat, M., A. Pałęga, and M. Jędrzejek. eds. 2017. \u003cem\u003ePromocja zdrowia w działaniu: od teorii do praktyki\u003c/em\u003e. Wydawnictwo Eurosystem.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVidgen, H. A., and D. Gallegos. 2014. Defining food literacy and its components. \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 76:50\u0026ndash;59. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, J., and G. A. Buck. 2016. Understanding a high school physics teacher\u0026rsquo;s pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Science Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e 27(5):577\u0026ndash;604. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9476-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10972-016-9476-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeidler, D. L., and T. D. Sadler. 2023. Exploring and expanding the frontiers of socioscientific issues. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, and J. S. Lederman (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Research on Science Education (1 ed., pp. 899\u0026ndash;929)\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"argumentation, socio-scientific issues, nutrition, health education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7758515/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7758515/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eNurturing the ability to argue is of great importance in science education, even though students often encounter cognitive and emotional barriers. The aim of this study was to examine facets of high school students\u0026rsquo; argumentation and their dependence on topic. We chose topics of varied perceived relevance to their daily lives: the sale of fast food in school canteens (group 1) and the addition of antibiotics to animal feed (group 2). The study involved 249 high school students aged 14\u0026ndash;16, in Poland. Of these high school students, 139 participated in an intervention about fast food, and 110 in an intervention about the use of antibiotics. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to process and analyze the data. On average, students' arguments scored higher on the topic of antibiotic use on animal feed. Qualitative content analysis of the students\u0026rsquo; arguments identified four thematic groups: 1) personal aspects revealing personal meanings, values and defence mechanisms; 2) scientific aspects revealing personal substantive knowledge; 3) socio-cultural aspects revealing economic, sociological or cultural aspects; 4) non-sensical arguments. A topic related to students\u0026rsquo; personal decisions and perceived to be closes to their lives and daily experience (eating fast food in the school canteen) more often prompted arguments indicating cognitive defence, by denying the harmfulness of fast food and emphasizing possible advantages or appealing to the right to choose. Based on this finding, we discuss the need for defense mechanisms and emotional engagement to be taken into consideration in designs for the teaching of argumentation.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Between Rationality and Self-protection: Student-Constructed Arguments on Fast Food Consumption and Antibiotics Overuse as Public Health Issues in Biology Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-20 09:49:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7758515/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"03c14894-1369-4b0f-950f-7788730cf095","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-16T16:01:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7758515","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-026-09693-4","journal":{"identity":"argumentation","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Argumentation"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-09 15:58:17","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 9th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-20 09:49:22","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10503-026-09693-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-026-09693-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7758515","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7758515","identity":"rs-7758515","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}