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

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.