Socioscientific argumentation and model- based reasoning: A study on mining exploitation in Colombia

The primary objective of this article is to identify the mental models that represent a social-scientific problematic specific to high-school Colombian students. This is followed by the analysis of the argumentative schemes that these students may use to justify such models. By using a combined design, fifty two participants (52 people, 31 women and 21 men between the ages of 15 and 23; with education levels between high school and undergraduate degree) analyzed the possibility of implementing a mining exploitation project in a specific region of Colombia that is currently under the administrative control of one of Colombia’s native communities. The qualitative analysis showed the presence of 11 models for thinking about the given social-scientific problematic and a limited range of argumentation schemes (11); the quantitative analysis through ANOVAs (variance analysis) showed significant differences regarding the number of arguments per grade and the mental model. The results are discussed emphasizing the advantage that proceeds from exploring the students’ argumentative speech from a developmental-cognitive perspective with significant implications in the educational field.