1 Introduction

Recent advancements in information and communication technologies, coupled with the rapid progress of science and technology, have had a significant impact on school curriculums. One aim of the science curricula is to use socio-scientific issues (SSI) as a means to cultivate scientific literacy, enhance students’ reasoning abilities, nurture scientific thought processes, and foster decision-making skills (Ministry of National Education, MoNE, 2018). SSI have been integrated into the curricula of many science education programmes worldwide (Kilinc et al., 2017). Furthermore, educational standards, like NGSS (2013), highlight the importance of promoting scientific literacy amongst young learners. By becoming scientifically literate, students are able to analyse scientific knowledge rationally and to interpret data and evidence to explain phenomena scientifically (OECD, 2016; Wen et al., 2020). Students’ scientific literacy is closely related to effective decision making on SSI. This is because it is not possible to make decisions on an issue and use this information in a manner that benefits society without first knowing how scientific knowledge is formed, what the nature of science is, what steps there are in the scientific process, and current scientific knowledge (Özdem et al., 2010). Garrecht et al. (2021) suggested increasing the use of SSI in middle school classrooms. Their research revealed that middle school students provide a variety of disciplinary arguments when they are exposed to SSI. However, Chen and Xiao (2021) claim that science teachers are unable to integrate SSI into their teaching due to time constraints, inadequate pedagogical knowledge, and a lack of teaching materials. Due to the aforementioned reasons, it is clear that SSI will become increasingly significant in science curricula. This study presents two ways of teaching SSI, namely SSI-based instruction and SSI-based instruction with argumentation.

1.1 Necessity of the Study

The main goal of science education is to develop students’ scientific literacy. Ke et al. (2021) stated that over the past couple of decades, SSI have “proven effective in promoting scientific literacy” (p.590). Scientific literacy is not just about knowing scientific facts but also about critical thinking, making informed decisions, and engaging complex SSI. Young people must have the chance to learn about scientific issues that affect society (Dawson & Venville, 2022). This is achieved by SSI (Dawson & Venville, 2022; Sadler, 2004). Additionally, Dawson and Venville (2010) elaborate that argument is an important part of scientific literacy. Together, students can understand the properties of a good argument and how these arguments could be used for interacting with their colleagues (Chen, 2019).

This study explores the effect of SSI-based instruction with argumentation because it has the potential to enhance scientific literacy. This is crucial because scientifically literate individuals are better prepared to address real-world challenges, evaluate scientific claims, and participate meaningfully in societal discourse.

While the significance of SSI in science education is widely recognised, there is still a lack of empirical research on the effectiveness of certain teaching approaches in this context, particularly among middle school students. Students’ attitudes towards general SSI could be affected by SSI teaching; so it is lacking to investigate the effect of SSI education on students’ attitudes toward SSI (Klaver & Walma van der Molen, 2021). Prior studies in this area have predominantly focused on pre-service teachers or have explored attitudes toward SSI without examining the broader impact on scientific literacy. In this study, experimental animals, global warming, and plastic and recycling were determined as SSI and these topics were implemented in each group. These SSI were chosen because they are well-known by middle school students (Garrecht et al., 2021) and also affect their lives, environments, and futures. Experimental animals, for example, were used for developing treatments during the recent pandemic. Thus, middle school students are asked to make conscious decisions on issues relevant to their lives (Zeidler et al., 2019).

The present study is different from others in that it measures scientific literacy with both open-ended questions and a scale. The scale measures students’ scientific literacy in terms of NSTA (1991) and open-ended questions measure students’ scientific literacy in terms of the PISA 2012 framework (OECD, 2013). Thus, the effect of treatment on scientific literacy was examined with more than one instrument with different frameworks to get more information about students’ scientific literacy. To our knowledge, there is no study determining the effect of SSI-based instruction with argumentation and SSI-based instruction on middle school students’ scientific literacy with two instruments.

This study seeks to fill this gap by specifically investigating the impact of SSI-based instruction with argumentation on middle school students, a critical stage in their educational journey. By doing so, we aim to provide empirical evidence that can guide educators and policymakers in designing more effective science curricula and teaching strategies, ultimately advancing the field of science education.

Accordingly, the research problem of the study is to examine the effect of SSI-based instruction with argumentation on 7th grade students’ views, attitudes, knowledge about SSI, and their scientific literacy. Within the framework of this general problem, the following sub-problems have been examined for example:

  • Is there a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scientific literacy scores of the experimental group?

  • Is there a statistically significant difference between the control group and experimental group scientific literacy open-ended post-test scores?

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Argumentation on SSI

SSI are often controversial, have no definitive answer, require individuals to make decisions, concern both science and society, and include moral and ethical concerns. Nuclear power plants, alternative energy sources, bioethics, global warming, and the use of animals in experiments can be given as examples of SSI (Sadler, 2004). These topics should include scientific and social issues and at the same time leave the person in a dilemma (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).

SSI in science education have been studied in all countries for the last 20 years. Previous research by Kolstø (2001), Sadler (2004), Sadler and Zeidler (2005), and Topcu et al. (2010) has underscored the significance of ascertaining and nurturing students’ viewpoints on SSI and the process of decision-making related to these matters. These scholars have stressed that interventions concerning SSI are not only essential but also imperative. The studies on SSI are vital since SSI are conceptually closely related to science and technology and can be defined as social issues and problems that are critical in society (Sadler et al., 2007). SSI reflect the dynamic connections of science with society and technology, giving emphasis to students’ ideas about science, experiences, and the social dilemmas they face (Sadler & Fowler, 2006).

SSI are not just scientific facts about an event. They are also closely related to the political, moral, and social aspects of problems in science and technology. As such, SSI have a complex structure that can be considered from various perspectives and should not be considered as a simple discussion (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). Students produce arguments by making scientific claims in the decision-making process on SSI and evaluate the event by looking at it with a critical perspective (Kolstø, 2004; Kolstø et al., 2006; Osborne et al., 2003). Toulmin also stated that argumentation should not be thought of as a simple discussion or making mutual claims, but as a process of supporting the claims with data by putting forward reasons (Toulmin, 1958). Argumentation can be expressed as the process in which individuals present their claims by mutually stating their justifications, supporting them with data, and reaching a conclusion by evaluating the reasons. In the present study, SSI-based instruction with argumentation was used for the development of students’ opinions, attitudes, and knowledge about SSI, as argumentation improves skills such as competencies (Chin et al., 2016), problem-solving, communication, and questioning. Also, students’ argumentation on SSI and decision-making enables them to use the knowledge and skills they have learned in science lessons to solve everyday problems (Simonneaux, 2007).

2.2 Scientific Literacy, SSI, and SSI Argumentation

Scientific literacy has been defined by many authorities (such as Bybee, 1997; MoNE, 2018; National Research Council [NRC], 1996; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 1991; Rennie, 2005). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 evaluated science literacy with four interrelated concepts. These are context: recognizing life situations involving science and technology; competencies: to have scientific competencies to determine scientific topics, to use scientific evidence, and to explain scientific facts; knowledge: knowledge that is used to understand the natural world and includes science content knowledge and scientific method knowledge; attitude: interest in science, supporting scientific research, willingness to act responsibly towards natural resources and the environment (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2013).

The impact of argumentation on scientific literacy of middle school students is crucial. Scientific literacy is vital for decision-making on SSI, issues related to social and scientific information and include controversies. Research has shown that decisions made during SSI investigations are a crucial part of developing scientific literacy in students (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Topçu, 2015). Thanks to SSI, students can increase their scientific literacy by improving their scientific process skills such as conducting research, making observations, collecting data, classifying, interpreting data, and drawing conclusions. Students’ argumentation on SSI could contribute to recognising different views, understanding that there may be different perspectives in science, researching the problems existing in society, and improving their decision-making and scientific literacy by evaluating the moral, environmental, and financial effects of these issues. This study is thus important for determining whether SSI-based instruction or SSI-based instruction with argumentation is effective for developing views, attitudes, knowledge about SSI, and their scientific literacy.

Today, people are required to make decisions and take sensible actions about a variety of personal and social issues (Song et al., 2021). Many experts claim that SSI are an important element in the development of scientific literacy (Driver et al., 2000; Hughes, 2000; Zeidler et al., 2002). The literature also suggests further that argumentation on SSI in science teaching improves science literacy and high-level thinking skills such as inquiry and critical thinking (Nuangchalerm, 2010; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Walker & Zeidler, 2007; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Studies on SSI have mostly been conducted on pre-service teachers (Çepni & Geçit, 2020; Ladrera et al., 2020). Little research has been done on students, and much of what has been done to examine students’ attitudes towards a certain SSI, but there are a limited number of studies on the general views and attitudes of younger students about SSI (Byrne et al., 2014; Dawson & Venville, 2022; Durmaz & Seçkin-Karaca, 2019). Sadler et al. (2015) also stated that most studies on SSI relate to planning but there is not much research on SSI implementation.

3 Method

The study was quasi-experimental (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). In this design, the classes were randomly assigned as an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG). In our country, as classes were already formed by the administration, the researchers could not change the students in each group. Thus, for this study, a quasi-experimental design was chosen to compare and determine whether the groups were equal in terms of views, attitudes, knowledge about SSI, and their scientific literacy based on their pre-tests.

3.1 Sample

The necessary permissions for implementation were obtained as a result of correspondence with the District Provincial Directorate of National Education. The sample for the study consisted of 49 seventh-grade students (EG: 30; CG: 19) studying in a middle school located in a rural area. The sampling method used was a non-random convenient sampling method. The classes were already formed before the treatment so we could not change the number of students in each group. These groups were in the same school and were made up of students living in the same area. A pre-test was conducted to determine the students’ prior views, attitudes, knowledge about SSI, and their scientific literacy. Before the study, the academic averages of the students in science courses were checked. The grades of both groups were similar. The research design is given in Table 1.

Table 1 Research design of the study
Full size table

3.2 Data Collection Tools

The scientific literacy scale, scientific literacy open-ended questions, views and attitudes about SSI scale, and SSI knowledge open-ended questions were applied to the EG and CG as a pre-test and post-test.

The scientific literacy scale was developed by Keskin (2008) in line with the characteristics of scientifically literate people proposed by NSTA (1991) and so has 17 properties. The items were written according to these properties. The scale has 34 multiple-choice questions. Answers were coded as right (two points), close answer (one point), and wrong (zero points). The mean scientific literacy level was classified as 0–0.66 low, 0.67–1.32 medium, and 1.33–2.00 high. The scale was examined by science education experts for content validity in terms of whether they measure the 17 properties of NSTA (1991). A pilot study was conducted with seventh and eighth-grade students. After the pilot study item discrimination index, the item difficulty index and reliability coefficient were calculated. Its reliability coefficient was 0.81 (Keskin et al., 2016). One example question follows:

After reading the paragraph of each of the following questions, select the most appropriate option.

4) The phone, which has a great place in our daily lives, was invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. Nowadays, activities such as recording and referencing with our mobile phones, connecting to the internet, and radio listening can be done.

According to this.

  1. (A).

    Mankind always creates new products by trying to do better.

  2. (B).

    Mankind only discovers the moment in nature, does not produce itself.

  3. (C).

    Develop existing tools around human beings.

  4. (D)

    …………….

The scientific literacy open-ended questions were formed from PISA 2012 example science questions (These questions are: greenhouse effects; Is it a health risk?) but were also developed by the researchers (These questions are: Are we aware of our ecological footprint?; We are calling from Muğla to the World). There are four questions and their sub-questions. These questions were prepared based on PISA 2012 framework. This framework includes context, competencies, knowledge, and attitude domains. These questions have two parts: narrated open-ended scientific literacy questions and related attitude questions. These questions were examined by experts from science education and science teachers in terms of content and construct validity. They are required to examine the questions according to their consistency with the PISA 2012 framework and course content. Each question was categorised by experts in terms of the framework. The inter-rater reliability among them was 91%. Then, a pilot study of the questions was conducted with the same age group, but a different group than the participants of the study. After the pilot study, in the question “Are we aware of our ecological footprint?,” the meaning of ecological footprint was written in a simple and explanatory way. In the question of “Is it a health risk?,” symptom terms were explained in parenthesis, and it was written as an illness indication. These were conducted based on the experts and researchers’ views. As such, the questions were understandable for the students. After this process, the questions were applied to the study groups. These questions were evaluated using the PISA 2012 scientific literacy evaluation framework. The narrated open-ended scientific literacy sub-questions were coded as 3 for full points, 2 for partial, 1 for inadequate, and 0 for empty or wrong. The related attitude sub-questions were coded as 1 for highly interested, 2 for medium interest, 3 for low interest, and 4 for not interested. A sample question is as follows:

We are calling from Muğla to the World.

Hello, my name is Almond. I am one of the most charming animals in the world, living in the Muğla region, and am in danger of extinction of generation. I’m a caretta, so I’m a sea turtle. In the near future, I and some of my friends living in other parts of the world will be extinct. Because, even though our number is decreasing every day, we find it difficult to find shelter and nutrients. We decided to write this letter to you due to the fact that our life is in the hands of human beings. We wish that you show us help and sensitivity.

  1. 1.

    How would you respond to the letter written by Almond and other near-extinct animals? Explain with reasons.

  2. 2.

    What are the importance of Almond and friends (other endangered animal species) in the ecological system?

  3. 3.

    What consequences do you think the extinction of the generations of Almond and friends will have on the world?

  4. 4.

    What are the reasons for the extinction of the generations of Almond and friends? Explain with reasons.

  5. 5.

    Suggest a solution to prevent the extinction of Almond and friends?

Attitude

To what extent does the following information concern you?

Mark only one box in each row

  

High

Medium

Low

Not concern

a)

Sensitivity to extinct animals

■1

■2

■3

■4

b)

The importance of living things in the ecological system

■1

■2

■3

■4

c)

Inferences about the consequences of the exhaustion of generations of living things

■1

■2

■3

■4

d)

Explaining the reasons for exhaustion of generations of living things

■1

■2

■3

■4

e)

Recommendation for solutions for endangered living things

■1

■2

■3

■4

The views and attitude about SSI scale was developed by Topçu (2010), and this is the only instrument for measuring attitudes towards SSI in general (Klaver & Van der Molen, 2021). The scale consists of three dimensions. These dimensions are interest and usefulness of SSI, liking of SSI, and anxiety towards SSI (Topçu, 2010). The scale consists of 30 items and has a 5-point Likert format. Adaptation and reliability studies were conducted for the middle school students. The Cronbach alpha internal reliability coefficients of the scale were collected between 0.70 and 0.90 for three dimensions, and it was determined to be a valid and reliable measurement tool (Topçu, 2010). The important reason for using this instrument is that the language of the scale is Turkish and it is the native language of the students. The second reason is that the languages of the other scales, such as Klaver and Van der Molen, (2021), were English or other languages. Thus, translation and adaptation of the scale were needed. For example, Byrne (2016) stated that “Unquestionably, it cannot be assumed that an assessment scale developed for use in one language and country will automatically measure the same phenomena in exactly the same way when translated into another language for use in a different country and culture.”(p.52). Also, adaptation studies take time and, most importantly, Topçu’s instrument validity and reliability values are higher in our context.

The SSI knowledge open-ended questions were developed by the researchers while examining related literature and consist of eight questions (see Appendix). Three topics — experimental animals, global warming, and plastic and recycling — were determined in this study. The questions were prepared in an open-ended format. The expert opinions were obtained from two faculty members, expert on science and SSI and two science teachers. At the end of the pilot study, “If you were to explain global warming with a drawing, what kind of drawing would you make?” changed to “If you were to explain global warming with a drawing, what kind of drawing would you draw? Explain what you want to tell with the picture you have drawn.” Because in the first case, students preferred written explanations instead of drawing. For thematic analysis, according to students’ responses, codes were designated, then codes were grouped, and themes were formed to make the data clear and understandable (Kvale, 1996). Each expert did the coding separately and each grouped the codes into the themes. The interrater agreement among the experts was 85%.

3.3 Implementation

Implementation was carried out in both groups over 7 weeks, 2 h a week. Before implementation, a teacher was informed about the process and the activities to be applied in the EG and CG. The EG and CG teacher was the same to prevent the implementation threat of internal validity. The teacher had a master’s degree in science education However, he had not use SSI teaching and argumentation before. Then, he was instructed on teaching SSI and argumentation. A pilot study was conducted with different group. To prevent threats to validity, the first researcher observed both groups, taught by the same teacher delivering the same lesson, to ensure fidelity in implementing the lesson according to the specified requirements for each group.

Lessons were designed using SSI-based instruction with argumentation in the EG and the SSI-based instruction in the CG. Both groups’ SSI were identical, covering three topics: experimental animals, global warming, and plastic and recycling. These topics were chosen because they are a part of their curriculum and familiar to them, making them thus able to form arguments (Garrecht et al. 2021). The scenarios are given in Supplementary File.

3.3.1 Experimental Group

Students were informed about the issue for each week and asked to do their research on that issue. There was initial question for argumentation were given to students but there was no initial question in the control group.

The initial questions are given in Table 2.

Table 2 The initial questions for argumentation of the experimental group for each week
Full size table

The sample lesson is as follows: The SSI (such as experimental animals) to be covered in the lesson was given a week in advance, and students were asked to do research on that issue. At the beginning of the lesson, to draw the attention of students, cartoons about experimental animals were shown and the students’ opinions about the cartoons were taken. Later, various photographs of experimental animals were shown. The students participated and exchanged information about the ethics of experimental animals, usage of experimental animals, other techniques that can be used instead of experimental animals, and the benefits and harms of using animals in experiments. The students shared their research. After that, the scenario about experimental animals was given and students were asked “Do you think animals should or should not be used as experimental animals for the development of drugs?” Two groups were formed so that the students who defended the same idea were in the same group. Afterwards, worksheets (the science writing heuristic template) were distributed to the groups (given in Appendix), and the students were asked to develop claims and warrants as a group and to answer the questions in the worksheet. After the students were given the necessary time, each group defended their claims and justifications respectively, and the other groups were also asked to refute their classmates’ claims by making rebuttal claims against the group that defended their claim and evidence. The science writing heuristic template proposed by Keys et al. (1999) was adapted to the study and used. The template, which helps students to form a strong argument by writing, includes sections where students form their questions, put forward valid claims and evidence, compare their ideas with the ideas of others, and reflect on how their ideas have changed. It is different from simple discussion because argumentation is a process of supporting the claims with data by putting forward the reasons (Toulmin, 1958). In the next stage of the lesson, the students were distributed cardboard, glue, scissors, and coloured pencils and they were asked to make a poster on the subject. The properties that should be in the poster are stated as follows: a spot name, a photograph, a drawing, and an advertisement scenario on SSI. After the poster was completed, each group made a poster presentation.

3.3.2 Control Group

The difference between EG is that the scenarios distributed to students is that the question “Do you think animals should or should not be used as experimental animals in the development of drugs?” was not asked. After the student’s ideas about the scenario were received, the students discussed the ethics of experimental animals, use of experimental animals, other techniques that can be used instead of experimental animals, and the benefits and harms of using animals in experiments. In the discussion, students talked about their research results on the subject. Implementation procedure is given in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Implementation procedure for both groups

Full size image

3.4 Data Analysis

Before analysis of each research question’s data, their parametric tests were determined, and their assumptions were checked. If they were not met, nonparametric tests were conducted. For the control group, the assumptions of the parametric tests were not met, and thus, nonparametric tests were conducted.

In this study, the SPSS 22.00 package statistics program was used to test the effect of argumentation on SSI on the scientific literacy, views, and attitude about SSI of seventh grade students. In order to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between scientific literacy and views and attitude about SSI pre-test and post-test scores of the EG and CG, the views and attitude about SSI scale, scientific literacy scale, and scientific literacy open-ended questions were used. Mann Whitney U, the paired samples t-test, and Wilcoxon tests were conducted. A significance level of 0.05 was accepted in the interpretation of the results. The answers of the students in the EG and CG to the pre-test and post-test regarding the “SSI knowledge open-ended questions” were analysed according to the content analysis. The answers given by the students to the pre-test and post-test were coded according to the themes created.

4 Results

In this section, first the effect of argumentation on SSI in students’ scientific literacy, then views, attitudes, and knowledge about SSI were examined.

4.1 The Effect of Argumentation on SSI in Students’ Scientific Literacy

To determine the effect of argumentation on SSI in middle school students’ scientific literacy, the scientific literacy scale and open-ended questions were used. The results of the scale are presented followed by the open-ended questions.

4.1.1 Results Regarding the “Scientific Literacy Scale”

Students’ scientific literacy scale scores in the experimental and control group before and after the treatment are given in Table 3.

Table 3 Descriptive results of scientific literacy scale scores in the EG and CG before and after the treatment
Full size table

Table 3 shows that there was a decrease in scientific literacy scores after the treatment in both groups. Thus, inferential statistics were used to determine whether this decrease was statistically significant.

The Mann Whitney U test was used to determine whether there was a difference between the scientific literacy pre-test scores of the CG and the EG. For the post-test, the Mann Whitney U test was also used. The result of the Mann Whitney U test showed that there was a significant difference between the scientific literacy pre-test scores of the CG and the EG. This difference is in favour of the CG. However, there was no significant difference between the scientific literacy post-test scores of the CG and the EG. The results are given in Table 4.

Table 4 Difference between the scientific literacy pre-test and post-test scores of the CG and EG
Full size table

The difference between the pre-test results of the EG and the CG indicates that the groups were not similar in terms of scientific literacy at the beginning. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the changes that may occur in the groups are only due to the treatment. To prevent this, a paired samples t-test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference between the scientific literacy pre-test and post-test scores of the EG. Wilcoxon test was used for the CG. The paired samples t-test results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the EG [t(29) = 0.387, p > 0.05]. The result of the Wilcoxon test showed that there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the CG [z =  − 2.464, p < 0.05] in favour of the pre-test. The median indicates that the students’ scientific literacy level was high at the beginning (1.61) and at the end (1.41).

Students’ scientific literacy scores were high at the beginning of the treatment according to Keskin’s (2008) classification. So, it can be said that the scientific literacy scores of both groups, but even more so in the CG, decreased. Still, the scientific literacy scores of each group can be considered high.

4.1.2 Results Regarding the “Scientific Literacy Open-Ended Questions”

The scientific literacy open-ended questions include two parts: the narrated open-ended scientific literacy questions and attitude towards the narrated scientific literacy questions. Students’ scientific literacy open-ended questions scores in the EG and CG before and after the treatment are given in Table 5.

Table 5 Descriptive results of scientific literacy open-ended questions scores in the EG and CG before and after the treatment
Full size table

Table 5 shows that there was an increase in scientific literacy scores after the treatment in both groups. Thus, inferential statistics were used to determine whether this increase was statistically significant.

To determine whether there was a difference between the scientific literacy pre-test scores of the CG and the EG, the Mann Whitney U test was used. Also, for the post-test, the Mann Whitney U test was applied. The results showed that there is no statistically significant difference in the pre-test and post-test scores of the EG and CG on the narrated open-ended scientific literacy questions and attitudes toward narrated scientific literacy questions. The results are given in Table 6.

Table 6 Scientific literacy open-ended questions’ pre-test and post-test scores of EG and CG
Full size table

According to Table 6, it could be stated that the treatments in both groups have no effect on students’ scientific literacy. However, the paired t-test and Wilcoxon test were conducted to determine whether there was an improvement in the science literacy scores in each group. For CG, the paired samples t-test results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores on the narrated open-ended scientific literacy questions. This difference was in favour of the post-test [t(29) =  − 8.778, p < 0.05]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the attitudes toward narrated scientific literacy questions [t(29) =  − 1.56, p > 0.05].

Similar to CG results, for EG, the Wilcoxon test results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the narrated open-ended scientific literacy questions [z =  − 3.489, p < 0.05]. The median indicates that students’ post-test scientific literacy open-ended scores (median: 27) were higher than pre-test scores (median:21). However, like EG, the Wilcoxon test results showed that there is no statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test of the attitudes toward narrated scientific literacy questions [z =  − 1.613, p > 0.05]. The median of the pre-test was 43, and the post-test was 47.

The results of the scientific literacy open-ended questions show that the narrated open-ended scientific literacy of the EG and CG was developed at the end of the treatment. Also, it could be stated that treatment in each group was equally effective.

4.2 The Effect of Argumentation on SSI in Students’ Views and Attitude on SSI

Students’ views and attitude on SSI scores in the experimental and control group before and after the treatment are given in Table 7.

Table 7 Descriptive results of views and attitude on SSI in the EG and CG before and after the treatment
Full size table

Table 7 shows that there was an increase in students’ views and attitude on SSI in each group after the treatment. Thus, the Mann Whitney U test results presented that there was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test scores of the EG and CG regarding views and attitude about SSI. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between the post-test scores of the EG and CG on views and attitude about SSI. The results are given in Table 8.

Table 8 Views and attitude about SSI pre-test and post-test scores of EG and CG
Full size table

The results show that there was no difference at the beginning of the treatment and there was no difference at the end of the treatment. Thus, whether there was a difference within each group in their views and attitudes toward SSI was investigated. For the EG, the paired t-test results indicate that there was no statistically significant difference between the views and attitude about SSI pre-test and post-test scores [t (28) =  − 1.12, p > 0.05]. However, there is an increase in favour of the post-test. For CG, the Wilcoxon test results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the views and attitude regarding SSI pre-test and post-test scores [z =  − 2.177, p < 0.05]. The median indicates that students’ post-test scores (Median: 108) were higher than pre-test scores (median:98). In terms of the dimensions, there was a statistically significant difference in the dimension of “interest and usefulness of SSI” [z =  − 2.158, p < 0.05] in favour of the post-test.

4.3 The Effect of Argumentation on SSI in Students’ Knowledge on SSI

There were nine open-ended SSI knowledge questions. Each question was examined according to the themes formed.

4.3.1 Experimental Animals

Both groups were asked at the beginning and at the end of the treatment about the definition of experimental animals, for what purpose they were used, and where they learned about the experimental animals. The results are given in Table 9.

Table 9 Experimental animal knowledge pre-test and post-test scores of EG and CG
Full size table

Most EG and CG students described experimental animals as those used in experiments at both the beginning and at the end of the treatment. After the treatment, the frequency of this increased. When the responses of the EG are examined, experimental animals were described in more detail (give the specific names of experimental animals, such as rats, give examples) in the post-test. However, the CG responses were similar to the pre-test, and they were simpler than those of the EG. Some sample excerpts are given:

  • Student24 (EG-Pre-test): I heard of it. The animal being tested on. (theme 1)

  • Student24 (EG-Post-test): It is an experimental animal. For example, if the drugs to be given to humans are tested on rats and nothing bad happens, they are sold to humans. So it's an experimental animal. (theme 1, 4)

  • Student2 (CG-Pre-test): I heard of it. Guinea pig means subject. So he becomes a test animal. (theme 1)

  • Student2 (CG-Post-test): Guinea pigs are the experimental animals used in the experiments. (theme 1)

Students’ responses to for what purposes experimental animals are used were as follows: at the beginning of the treatment, most of the EG (15) stated that experimental animals could be used in drug development in medicine; whereas in the post-test, in addition to drug development, they stated that experimental animals are used in experimental study. In the pre-test and post-test, most of the CG (8 for pre-test; 9 for post-test) stated that experimental animals were used for experimental study. When the EG responses were investigated, it was observed that their post-test explanations were gave more detail and more specific answers. However, CG responses in the post-test were simpler than EG. Some sample excerpts are given:

  • Student30 (EG-Pre-test): Guinea pigs may be used to try and achieve results on animals that are for humans.(theme 2,3)

  • Student30 (EG-Post-test): It may be used to understand the harms of newly produced drugs. (Theme 4)

  • Student7 (CG-Pre-test): Guinea pigs are like plastic, like toys. (Theme 6)

  • Student7 (CG-Post-test): Used in experiments and the like. (Theme 1)

Students’ responses about where they learned the experimental animals were as follows: in the pre-test, most of the EG and CG stated that they learned about experimental animals from written sources such as books, journals, and encyclopaedias; whereas in the post-test, they stated that they learned from school, the teacher, and lessons. In the pre-test, most of EG (19) stated that they learned about experimental animals from written sources such as books, journals, and encyclopaedias. However, in the post-test, most of EG (19) stated they learned about experimental animals from school, the teacher, and lessons. For the CG, similar to the EG, in the pre-test, most (8) stated that they learned about experimental animals from written sources such as books, journals, and encyclopaedias. In the post-test, most of the CG (15) stated they had learned experimental animals from school, the teacher, and lessons. When the responses were examined, it is observed that in the post-test, both groups mentioned the lessons they participated in. The sample excerpts are given below:

  • Student21 (E-Pre-test): From the book Kapiland’s guinea pigs and from the internet. (Theme 1,5)

  • Student21 (E-Post-test): Internet and science class. (Theme 2,5)

  • Student4 (C-Pre-test): I learned from the book Kapiland’s guinea pigs. (Theme 1)

  • Student4 (C-Post-test): I learned the knowledge I had about the guinea pig in my socioscientific class. (Theme 2)

4.3.2 Plastic and Recycling

Students were asked about the definition of recycling, examples of recyclable materials, and the effects of plastic materials on the environment before and after the treatment. The results are given in Table 10.

Table 10 Plastic and recycling knowledge pre-test and post-test scores of EG and CG
Full size table

In the pre-test and post-test, most of the EG and CG stated that recycling is the processing of a substance and making it reusable. In the EG, after the treatment, the number of the students was increased from 25 in the pre-test to 28 in the post-test. Like the EG; the number of the students in CG was increased from 17 in the pre-test to 18 in the post-test. In the pre-test, both the CG and EG gave irrelevant answers, but in the post-test, neither group gave no irrelevant answers. The sample excerpts are given below:

  • Student23 (E-Pre-test): Making an object or substance usable after it becomes unusable.

  • Student23 (E-Post-test): Recycling a substance.

  • Student11 (C-Pre-test): Recycling is making a substance reusable.

  • Student11 (C-Post-test): Recycling is the ability to make a substance reusable.

Students’ responses about the examples of recyclable materials were as follows: most of the EG stated that glass and plastic can be recycled; in the post test, the number is increased from 25 to 29 for glass, from 24 to 30 for plastic, and from 21 to 29. Like EG, most of the CG (16) stated that plastic and paper can be recycled in the pre-test. In the post-test, the number is increased from 13 to 18 for glass, from 16 to 19 for plastic, and from 16 to 19 for paper. The sample excerpts are given below:

  • Student26 (E-Pre-test): Iron, plastic, glass, paper.

  • Student26 (E-Post-test): Paper, metal, glass, plastic.

  • Student4 (C-Pre-test): Glass, plastic, waste battery, paper, cardboard, metal.

  • Student4 (C-Post-test): Battery, glass, cardboard, plastic, waste oils, metal.

Students’ responses about the effects of plastic materials on the environment were as follow: in the pre-test, most of the EG and CG stated that plastic materials stay in the environment for many years. In the pre-test, most of the EG (13) stated that plastic materials stay in environment for many years, whereas in the post-test, most of the EG (17) stated that plastics are harmful to nature and living creatures. Likely, in the pre-test, most of CG stated that plastic materials stay in environment for many years, whereas in the post-test, plastics are harmful to nature and living creatures. The sample excerpts are given below:

  • Student35 (EG-Pre-test): Plastic is a material that can hardly mix with soil. So it has an impact on the environment. (Harmful for nature and living things)

  • Student35 (EG-Post-test): It also has a huge impact. Plastic degrades in 1000 years, so it has a huge impact on global warming. (Stay in environment for many years)

  • Student13 (CG-Pre-test): It does not mix with the soil for a very long time and it is chemical. (Stay in environment for many years)

  • Student13 (CG-Post-test): Plastics are harmful to the environment as they do not disappear for a very long time and contain harmful chemicals. (Stay in environment for many years)

4.3.3 Global Warming

Students were asked about the definition of global warming and where they learned about the global warming before and after the treatment. The results are given in Table 11.

“From which source or sources did you learn the information you have about global warming?”.

Table 11 Global warming knowledge pre-test and post-test scores of EG and CG
Full size table

In the pre-test, most of the EG (20) explained global warming as the pollution of the environment by toxic gases, while in the post-test, some (20) explained it as the greenhouse effect and some (19) explained the pollution of the environment by toxic gases. On the other hand, in the pre-test, most of CG (12) explained global warming with the depletion and thinning of the ozone layer, whereas in the post-test, they (10) explained the pollution of the environment by toxic gases. The sample excerpts are given below:

  • Student40 (EG-Pre-test): Perfume, deodorant and exhaust gases that people use pierce the atmosphere and the glaciers melt due to overheating. (Melting of glaciers and poles)

  • Student40 (EG-Post-test): It is the greenhouse effect. It is the warming of the Earth by trapping the heat of the atmosphere. (Greenhouse effect)

  • Student14 (CG-Pre-test): Depletion of the ozone layer. (Depletion of the ozone layer)

  • Student14 (CG-Post-test): It is caused by the greenhouse effect. (Greenhouse effect)

Students’ responses about where they learned about the global warming before and after the treatment were as follow: in the pre-test, most of the EG (16) stated “Internet.” In the post-test, the number is increased to 23. In the pre-test, most of the CG (8) stated “written sources” and “Internet.” In the post-test, most of the CG (13) stated the “school, lesson, teacher.” The sample excerpts are given below:

  • Student30 (E-Pre-test): I learned from a book, magazine and website. (Written sources and Internet)

  • Student30 (E-Post-test): I learned it in science applications class. (School, lesson, teacher)

  • Student12 (C-Pre-test): Internet and television. (visual sources and Internet)

  • Student12 (C-Post-test): Internet, television, teacher. (Internet; visual sources; school, lesson teacher)

5 Discussion and Conclusion

This study shows that argumentation on SSI is better at promoting student literacy levels in comparison to traditional SSI teaching. In the present study, students’ scientific literacy was measured using a scientific literacy scale and open-ended questions. The results of the students’ scientific literacy scale showed no difference among groups. The reason for this is that all students’ scientific literacy levels were high at the beginning and also at the end of the intervention in terms of Keskin’s (2008) classification of students’ scientific literacy scores. However, there was a difference in terms of the scientific literacy open-ended questions after the intervention. Thus, it can be stated that students’ scientific literacy can be promoted by argumentation activities on SSI. Also, it is suggested that students’ scientific literacy levels be determined with open-ended questions in order to get in-depth explanations. In terms of attitudes toward narrated scientific literacy questions, there is no statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the EG and CG. The research results support that it is important for students to conduct research on SSI, express their thoughts comfortably, and make informed decisions in order to be scientifically literate (MoNE, 2018; Topçu, 2015). Also, in line with research results, Sadler and Zeidler (2004) considered scientifically discussing SSI as one of the important elements of scientific literacy and emphasised that SSI should be taught in secondary, high school, and university level science curricula. Sadler and Zeidler (2009) stated that providing meaningful learning environments will help students in their development of scientific literacy. Thus, in the present study, the real-life issues of SSI were used and middle school students’ scientific literacy was developed. The present study shows that like other studies mentioned (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007; Yan & Erduran, 2008), argumentation is effective for the development of students’ scientific literacy. Through argumentation, students improve their ability to make evidence-based judgments and achieve the goals set in science education reforms (Osborne et al., 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).

In the present study, it was found that argumentation on SSI did not have an effect on the development of students’ views and attitude about SSI. However, there was an increase in the students’ post-test mean scores. The reasons for this could be that SSI have dilemmas that concern both society and science, involving moral and ethical concerns (Sadler, 2004) and the challenge of changing student attitudes (Chang et al., 2018; Jho et al., 2014).

On the other hand, the traditional SSI group developed views and attitudes about SSI by the end of the intervention. There is a statistically significant difference between CG pre-test and post-test scores on “views and attitude about SSI,” and this difference is in favour of the post-test scores. In terms of the dimensions, there is a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores in the “interest and usefulness of SSI” dimension in favour of the post-test. The reasons for this could be that the students were active, SSI were up to date, students did research about the SSI that are covered each week, and students worked cooperatively. Thus, students could conclude that SSI are useful and important. Karpudewan and Roth (2018) emphasise that the beliefs, cultures, and personal experiences of individuals about the topic affect decision-making processes on SSI.

When the literature is examined, it is seen that the attitude studies on SSI are based on specific topics such as nuclear power plants (Jho et al., 2014). Durmaz and Seçkin-Karaca (2020) found that the planned and purposeful inclusion of SSI in the learning environment will positively contribute to seventh grade students’ development of multiple perspectives towards SSI. Like the above study results, in the present study, the reason for the statistically significant difference in favour of the post-test in the “interest and usefulness of SSI” dimension of the CG could be that students could think that the information gathered from the implementation is useful and important. Also, students’ cultural knowledge and sample characteristics differentiate the results of the studies about attitude. When the above studies and related literature are examined, the attitude studies about SSI have largely been done on pre-service teachers (Sturgis et al., 2005) and there are more studies on attitudes towards a specific SSI.

In terms of the pre-test and post-test scores of the EG and CG for “SSI knowledge open-ended questions,” both groups showed improved content knowledge after implementation. For example, in each group, the students’ scientifically incorrect knowledge about global warming in the pre-test decreased in the post-test. However, it is seen that some students continue to explain global warming as the depletion and thinning of the ozone layer.

The other notable result of the study is that most of the EG and CG on the pre-test stated that they had obtained most of the information about experimental animals from written sources such as books, journals, and encyclopaedias. The reason for this may be the book that students read about experimental animals in the Literacy lesson. The theme that students have the most opinions on in the post-test is the theme “school, lesson, teacher.” However, for the global warming topic, most of the EG (33.3%) learnt the information about global warming from the “internet” in the pre-test. The reason for this may be due to the widespread use of the internet today. Also, Gungordu et al. (2017) stated that websites could lead to students’ misconceptions. Sinatra and Lombardi (2020) stated that individuals search internet for any questions related to scientific issues. This is followed by “written sources such as books, journals, encyclopaedias” with 20.8%. Most of the CG (28.6%) obtained information from written sources such as books, journals, encyclopaedias, and the internet in the pre-test. The reason for this may be due to the effect of the practices performed in the course. Thus, it could be stated that students’ source of knowledge in terms of the context.

Students’ pre-test knowledge results showed that students generally have sufficient knowledge about some topics such as recycling. When the students’ knowledge about global warming is examined in the post-test, it can be said that they are more successful than in the pre-test. Like the present study, Chang et al. (2018) stated that the implementation could develop students’ SSI knowledge.

Most of the previous studies were carried out with undergraduate students on different SSI (genetic engineering, nuclear energy, ozone depletion, and greenhouse effect, cloning), and the students’ knowledge had some deficiencies. This means that middle school students’ prior knowledge about global warming is not sufficient. Some students were observed to have incomplete and incorrect knowledge about the selected SSI. When examining the students’ post-test “SSI knowledge questions,” it can be said that the incorrect knowledge that the students had about the subject had decreased and they answered successfully.

There are some limitations and some suggestions of the study. One could be that the time between pre-test and post-test was 7 weeks and students could recall the items. Thus, implementation period could be increased in future studies. Second, this study is limited to the data obtained from 49 students studying in the seventh grade. Thus, the result may not be generalised to other contexts but does give in depth information in the open-ended question responses. Also, increasing the sample size is recommended for further studies. Third, our study is limited to the selected SSI of experimental animals, global warming, plastic, and recycling. As such, replication of the same study using different SSI with a true experimental design in order to get more information to determine the effect of argumentation on SSI compared to traditional SSI instruction on the development of middle school students’ scientific literacy and views and attitude toward SSI is recommended. Lastly, the level of student scientific literacy, views, and attitudes about SSI, and knowledge about SSI could be measured after a period of time to better understand retention level of these constructs.