Student argumentation on health issues dealt with in online sources

Purpose Adolescents and young adults have been found to lack sufficient health literacy, making them vulnerable to disinformation. To navigate online information safely, they need the ability to analyze argumentation and distinguish between credible and unreliable sources. This study aims to examine upper secondary school students’ argumentation on health topics dealt with in online sources. Design/methodology/approach The study examines 342 recommendation letters written by students, in which they advise a fictitious friend on a health dilemma. In their letters, students stated their position on the issue and justified it using online sources they had selected. The analyses focused on how students formed their position, structured their argumentation and used sources. The results were compared across two topics – Vaccination and Dietary Fats – and examined in relation to prior topic knowledge. Findings The students generally assumed positions aligned with the scientific view on the topics, supporting the vaccination of children and avoiding hard dietary fats for health reasons. However, their argumentation was not very deep or extensive. Strong prior topic knowledge on dietary fats was associated with positions aligned with scientific consensus, while good prior knowledge on both topics predicted better argumentation. Originality/value The study provides new insights into adolescents’ online information behavior, showing that they need more practice both in argumentation and sourcing skills for safe use of online information. The study also emphasizes the importance of prior topic knowledge in evaluating new information encountered online.