The European Educational Researcher

Improving Primary School Students' Socio-Scientific Argumentation Skills Through the Example Issue of Urban Heatwaves

Maria Christoforaki 1 * ,
Evangelia Mavrikaki 1,
Apostolia Galani 1
1 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
The European Educational Researcher, Volume 9, Issue 1, February 2026, pp. 7-36
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 11 DOWNLOADS: 3 Publication date: 15 Feb 2026
ABSTRACT
The increasing frequency and intensity of urban heatwaves reshapes environmental and social realities globally. These phenomena not only challenge the resilience of urban ecosystems but also call attention to the importance of developing scientific literacy and reasoning skills at a primary level. Situated within these pressing socio-environmental conditions, this study examines the way in which primary school students engage in socio-scientific argumentation (SSA) when reasoning about urban heatwave mitigation. Drawing upon Toulmin’s argumentation model as theoretical lens to explore both the structure and content of students’ arguments and to trace how these evolve through targeted intervention, a qualitative-dominant design was employed involving 148 5th-grade students in Greece, with quantitative summaries used descriptively to illustrate trends and shifts in argumentation components. Data were collected through pre- and post-intervention digital questionnaires and structured worksheets. Students’ written responses were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis, guided by a rubric that assessed both the structural coherence and content quality of their arguments, while frequencies and shift analysis provided descriptive insights into changes across demographic variables. The instructional intervention centered on the serious game Heatwave City, designed to immerse learners in authentic decision-making scenarios around urban sustainability. Findings revealed that pre-intervention arguments were largely fragmented and weakly supported by evidence, whereas post-intervention data indicated more consistent articulation of claims and increased use of relevant scientific information, particularly in questionnaire responses. Advances in reasoning and counterargumentation were more limited, with these components remaining largely at emergent levels. We conclude by offering recommendations for fostering students’ engagement with SSA through sustained, dialogic, model-based, and game-enhanced learning environments.
KEYWORDS
Primary education, scientific literacy, socio-scientific argumentation, urban heatwaves.
CITATION (APA)
Christoforaki, M., Mavrikaki, E., & Galani, A. (2026). Improving Primary School Students' Socio-Scientific Argumentation Skills Through the Example Issue of Urban Heatwaves. The European Educational Researcher, 9(1), 7-36. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.912
REFERENCES
  1. Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science-enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76(6), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760603
  2. Akerson, V. L., Townsend, J. S., Donnelly, L. A., Hanson, D. L., Tira, P., & White, O. L. (2009). Scientific Modeling for Inquiring Teachers Network (SMIT’N): The influence on elementary teachers’ views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9116-5
  3. Alegado, R. A., & Lewis, S. E. (2018). Claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) framework: Supporting students in constructing explanations in science. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
  4. Andrews, R. (2005). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. Springer.
  5. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290
  6. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
  7. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  8. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
  9. Boston University. (2022). Differentiated instruction and equitable learning. https://www.bu.edu/education/differentiated-instruction
  10. Capkinoglu, E., Yilmaz, S., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2020). Quality of argumentation by seventh graders in local socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(6), 827–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21609
  11. Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44, 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6
  12. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 50, 863–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x
  13. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  14. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2
  15. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  16. European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal (COM(2019) 640 final). Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640
  17. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
  18. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20482
  19. Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Golden, B. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1412–1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891160
  20. Gül, M. D. (2020). Effectiveness of socio-scientific issues-based instruction on pre-service teachers’ critical thinking skills [Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University]. National Thesis Center of Turkey.
  21. Khishfe, R. (2023). Relationship between nature of science and argumentation: A follow-up study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 1081–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10307-0
  22. Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 25(3), 388–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418
  23. Kolstø, P. O. (2006). The sustainability and future of unrecognized quasi-states. Journal of Peace Research, 43(6), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343306068102
  24. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00504
  25. Lawrence Hall of Science. (2024). Argumentation in science education: Strategies and tools. https://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/argumentation
  26. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
  27. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
  28. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
  29. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. The Nuffield Foundation. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf
  30. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20326
  31. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 89(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  32. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
  33. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  34. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
  35. Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M., Scovronick, N., Sera, F., Royé, D., Schneider, R., Tobias, A., … Gasparrini, A. (2021). The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change. Nature Climate Change, 11(6), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01058-x
  36. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). The effects of different online searching activities on high school students’ cognitive structures and informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 41, 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9189-y
  37. Yamamoto, T., Kamiyama, S., Tanaka, T., & Yamaguchi, E. (2022). Primary school students’ difficulties in writing arguments: Identifying challenges and opportunities for science teaching. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(3), 445–461.
  38. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 697–726). Routledge.
  39. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
  40. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20256
  41. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  42. Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K. L., & Herring, T. (2019). Argumentation and explanation in science education: The role of discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(4), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21516
  43. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
  44. Zölch, T., Maderspacher, J., Wamsler, C., & Pauleit, S. (2019). Using green infrastructure for urban climate-proofing: An evaluation of heat mitigation measures at the micro-scale. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.011
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.