Controversy in the classroom: How eighth-grade and undergraduate students reason about tradeoffs of genetically modified food

Current issues in science provide a rich context for learning because they can involve complex tradeoffs that cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries. Despite this potential benefit, and the need for citizens to make decisions about such issues, science controversy remains rare in the classroom. Consequently, there is much unknown about how students make sense of complex, multidisciplinary science.;This research examined eighth-grade (n = 190) and undergraduate (n = 9) students' reasoning about tradeoffs in the genetically modified food controversy (main study). To extend the findings from the main study, undergraduate students' reasoning was followed as they learned about ten additional science controversies (extension). The studies took place in the context of curricula designed on the basis of the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework, which posits a set of design principles that help students form a rich, integrated network of ideas about a topic.;Two new methodologies were developed for this work. The Embedded Perspective of Science Controversy was used to study students' integration of content in their written arguments (main study) and oral and written questions (extension). The Perspective views science controversy as a set of nested levels, where tradeoffs are one of the levels, but connecting to other levels (underlying scientific details, bigger picture context, etc.) is important for the weighing of tradeoffs. A scheme based on Toulmin's (1958) work on argumentation provided a way of comparing the structure of students' arguments.;As indicated by pre and post test scores, the curriculum helped both eighth-grade students (t = 11.7, p < 0.0001) and undergraduates (t = 13.9, p < 0.0001) learn about genetically modified food. In their final papers, both eighth-grade and undergraduate students presented evidence for and against their positions, in contrast with prior literature showing individuals have difficulty coming up with evidence against their positions. The students were also moving across the levels in the Embedded Perspective, also in contrast with work that has shown individuals fail to consider tradeoffs in an appropriate context. There were differences in eighth-grade and undergraduate students' reasoning, including how well they weighed tradeoffs. These differences were linked to differences in content knowledge, metacognition, and students' views of what constitutes good evidence.