Literature has emphasised the need for SSI education to systematically address the risks produced by modern society. This study examines the quality of risk-focused, socio-scientific arguments generated by 22 elementary students in South Korea, concerning nuclear power. Participants read two articles with opposing views on the nuclear phase-out policy and constructed written arguments to justify their positions on this policy. To analyse the quality of arguments, a risk-benefit oriented model encompassing both positivist and constructivist perspectives on risk was developed and applied. The model comprises knowledge components and comparison components. The research results showed that participants generally tended to justify their claims without incorporating comparison components. Some included risk-benefit comparison components, justifying their claims by presenting specific knowledge components in more detail and with more diversity, or by emphasising safety values. Based on these results, educational strategies and implications for improving the quality of students’ risk-focused socio-scientific arguments were discussed.

文献强调了 SSI 教育需要系统地应对现代社会带来的风险。本研究考察了韩国 22 名小学生提出的关于核电的以风险为重点的社会科学论点的质量。参与者阅读了两篇对核淘汰政策持相反观点的文章，并构建了书面论点来证明他们对该政策的立场。为了分析论点的质量，开发并应用了一个以风险-利益为导向的模型，该模型包括实证主义和建构主义的风险观点。该模型由知识组件和比较组件组成。研究结果表明，参与者通常倾向于在不纳入比较成分的情况下证明他们的主张是合理的。一些研究包括风险-收益比较成分，通过更详细、更多样化地介绍特定的知识成分，或通过强调安全价值来证明其主张的合理性。基于这些结果，讨论了教育策略和提高学生以风险为中心的社会科学论点质量的影响。