University Students’ Reasons When Deciding on Genetically Modified Agricultural Products
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published
Sep 30, 2025
Abstract
Socio-scientific issues (SSI) are contentious social issues that relate to science and technology. Despite the fact that socio-scientific issues are typically seen as a single entity, they possess multifaceted characteristics. All university students, regardless of their major, should be prepared to analyze complex socio-scientific issues and educated as scientifically literate individuals. This study examined the reasons affecting university students’ decision-making regarding the production and use of genetically modified agricultural products. The survey, which included five positive and five negative reasons for the production and use of GMOs, was developed with consideration of the key dimensions of the SEE-SEP model (science, environment, economy, ethics and policy), which is developed for comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing individuals’ decision-making. The data were collected from 110 university students. The findings indicated that while 65% university students do not support GMOs 35 % support, regardless of their major. With respect to reasons, similarities and the differences are observed between supporters and non-supporters as well as between science and non-science majors. For both comparisons, science- and environment-based reasons were found to be the most effective in shaping university students’ decisions, followed by other reasons in differing orders. The implications are discussed for addressing SSI in college classes.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
Socio-Scientific Issues, Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, Decision Reasons
Supporting Agencies
No funding sources declared.
References
Aerni, P. (2011). Do political attitudes affect consumer choice? Evidence from a large-scale field study with genetically modified bread in Switzerland. Sustainability, 3(9), 1555-1572.
Almarlind, P., & Sullivan Hellgren, J. M. (2021). Student reasoning about socioscientific issues in Swedish national science tests. In ESERA 2021, the 14th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Online via University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, August 30-September 3, 2021.
Baker, C. (2017). Quantitative research designs: Experimental, quasi-experimental, and descriptive. Evidence-based practice: An integrative approach to research, administration, and practice. (pp.155–183).
http://samples.jblearning.com/9781284101539/9781284101539_CH06_Drummond.pdf
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21609
Cebesoy, U. B. (2014). An analysis of science teachers’ genetics literacy and related decision-making process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Cassidy, E. W., & Kurfman, D. G. (1977). Decision making as purpose and process. Developing decision-making skills. Virginia: NCSS, 47th Yearbook.
Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342-352.
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(4), 581-601.
Cinici, A. (2016). Balancing the pros and cons of GMOs: socio-scientific argumentation in pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1841-1866.
Demiral, Ü. & Türkmenoğlu, H. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konuda karar verme stratejilerinin alan bilgileriyle ilişkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 309-340.
Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, C. J. (2012). Vargfrågan-Gymnasieelevers argumentation kring ett sociovetenskapligt dilemma.” The wolf issue-upper secondary students’ argumentation about a socio-scientific issue.”. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(1), 43-58.
Erkan, A. R. I., Yilmaz, V., & Olgun, M. (2021). The effect of trust benefit and risk perception of GM foods on behavior intention: a study on university students. Journal of Economy Culture and Society.
Es, H., & Yenilmez Türkoglu, A. (2021). Science and non-science majors’ mental models of nuclear power: Does the program of study matter? Acta Didactica Napocensia, 14(2), 231-243.
Finucane, M. L., & Holup, J. L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 60(7), 1603-1612.
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-based socioscientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 407-424.
Garrecht, C., Reiss, M. J., & Harms, U. (2021). ‘I wouldn’t want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’–the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 2065-2086.
Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587-2607.
Gutteling, J., Hanssen, L., van Der Veer, N., & Seydel, E. (2006). Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 103-112.
Karisan, D., & Cebesoy, U. B. (2021). Use of the SEE-SEP model in pre-service science teacher education: The case of genetics dilemmas. In W. A. Powell (Ed.). Socioscientific issues-based instruction for scientific literacy development (pp. 223-254). IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4558-4.ch008
Klingeman, W. E., & Hall, C. R. (2006). Risk, trust, and consumer acceptance of plant biotechnology: implications for genetically modified ornamental plants. Journal of Crop Improvement, 18(1-2), 451-486.
Ladachart, L., & Ladachart, L. (2021). Preservice biology teachers’ decision-making and informal reasoning about culture-based socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 641-671.
Legge Jr, J. S., & Durant, R. F. (2010). Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 59-76.
Li, L., & Bautista, J. R. (2019). Examining personal and media factors associated with attitude towards genetically modified foods among university students in Kunming, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4613.
Menke, L., Voss, S., Kruse, J., & Zacharski, K. (2022). Investigating the Knowledge Domains Science Teachers Use When Considering a Socioscientific Issue. Research in Science Education, 53, 1-16.
Mohapatra, A. K., Priyadarshini, D., & Biswas, A. (2010). Genetically modified food: Knowledge and attitude of teachers and students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 489-497.
Pang, Y. (2023). Empirical analysis on the impact of trust in government, purposes of GM crops, and farmers’ expectations on the delayed commercialization of GM crops in China- Based on Xinjiang and Guangdong survey samples. GM Crops &Food, 14(1), 1-18.
Rundgren, S. C., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-24.
Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Gay, K. D., & Rodriguez, M. T. (2016). The importance of source: a mixed methods analysis of undergraduate students’ attitudes toward genetically modified food. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 145-161.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues-based education: What we know about science education in the context of SSI. T. D. Sadler (Ed). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research, 355-369. New York: Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_20
Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.
Sönmez, A., & Kılınç, A. (2012). Preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching GM Foods: The potential effects of some psychometric factors. Necatibey Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 49-76.
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475–2495.
Türköz, G., & Öztürk, N. (2020). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bazı sosyo-bilimsel konularla ilgili kararlarının çok boyutlu bakış açısı ile incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 9(1), 175-197.
Wu, Y. T. (2013). University students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning on the use of genetically modified foods: Multidimensional analyses. Research in Science Education, 43, 1873-1890.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1–15.
Almarlind, P., & Sullivan Hellgren, J. M. (2021). Student reasoning about socioscientific issues in Swedish national science tests. In ESERA 2021, the 14th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Online via University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, August 30-September 3, 2021.
Baker, C. (2017). Quantitative research designs: Experimental, quasi-experimental, and descriptive. Evidence-based practice: An integrative approach to research, administration, and practice. (pp.155–183).
http://samples.jblearning.com/9781284101539/9781284101539_CH06_Drummond.pdf
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21609
Cebesoy, U. B. (2014). An analysis of science teachers’ genetics literacy and related decision-making process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Cassidy, E. W., & Kurfman, D. G. (1977). Decision making as purpose and process. Developing decision-making skills. Virginia: NCSS, 47th Yearbook.
Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342-352.
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(4), 581-601.
Cinici, A. (2016). Balancing the pros and cons of GMOs: socio-scientific argumentation in pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1841-1866.
Demiral, Ü. & Türkmenoğlu, H. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konuda karar verme stratejilerinin alan bilgileriyle ilişkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 309-340.
Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, C. J. (2012). Vargfrågan-Gymnasieelevers argumentation kring ett sociovetenskapligt dilemma.” The wolf issue-upper secondary students’ argumentation about a socio-scientific issue.”. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(1), 43-58.
Erkan, A. R. I., Yilmaz, V., & Olgun, M. (2021). The effect of trust benefit and risk perception of GM foods on behavior intention: a study on university students. Journal of Economy Culture and Society.
Es, H., & Yenilmez Türkoglu, A. (2021). Science and non-science majors’ mental models of nuclear power: Does the program of study matter? Acta Didactica Napocensia, 14(2), 231-243.
Finucane, M. L., & Holup, J. L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 60(7), 1603-1612.
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-based socioscientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 407-424.
Garrecht, C., Reiss, M. J., & Harms, U. (2021). ‘I wouldn’t want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’–the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 2065-2086.
Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587-2607.
Gutteling, J., Hanssen, L., van Der Veer, N., & Seydel, E. (2006). Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 103-112.
Karisan, D., & Cebesoy, U. B. (2021). Use of the SEE-SEP model in pre-service science teacher education: The case of genetics dilemmas. In W. A. Powell (Ed.). Socioscientific issues-based instruction for scientific literacy development (pp. 223-254). IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4558-4.ch008
Klingeman, W. E., & Hall, C. R. (2006). Risk, trust, and consumer acceptance of plant biotechnology: implications for genetically modified ornamental plants. Journal of Crop Improvement, 18(1-2), 451-486.
Ladachart, L., & Ladachart, L. (2021). Preservice biology teachers’ decision-making and informal reasoning about culture-based socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 641-671.
Legge Jr, J. S., & Durant, R. F. (2010). Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 59-76.
Li, L., & Bautista, J. R. (2019). Examining personal and media factors associated with attitude towards genetically modified foods among university students in Kunming, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4613.
Menke, L., Voss, S., Kruse, J., & Zacharski, K. (2022). Investigating the Knowledge Domains Science Teachers Use When Considering a Socioscientific Issue. Research in Science Education, 53, 1-16.
Mohapatra, A. K., Priyadarshini, D., & Biswas, A. (2010). Genetically modified food: Knowledge and attitude of teachers and students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 489-497.
Pang, Y. (2023). Empirical analysis on the impact of trust in government, purposes of GM crops, and farmers’ expectations on the delayed commercialization of GM crops in China- Based on Xinjiang and Guangdong survey samples. GM Crops &Food, 14(1), 1-18.
Rundgren, S. C., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-24.
Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Gay, K. D., & Rodriguez, M. T. (2016). The importance of source: a mixed methods analysis of undergraduate students’ attitudes toward genetically modified food. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 145-161.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues-based education: What we know about science education in the context of SSI. T. D. Sadler (Ed). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research, 355-369. New York: Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_20
Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.
Sönmez, A., & Kılınç, A. (2012). Preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching GM Foods: The potential effects of some psychometric factors. Necatibey Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 49-76.
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475–2495.
Türköz, G., & Öztürk, N. (2020). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bazı sosyo-bilimsel konularla ilgili kararlarının çok boyutlu bakış açısı ile incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 9(1), 175-197.
Wu, Y. T. (2013). University students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning on the use of genetically modified foods: Multidimensional analyses. Research in Science Education, 43, 1873-1890.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1–15.
How to Cite
Okan, B., & Güven, D. (2025). University Students’ Reasons When Deciding on Genetically Modified Agricultural Products . Science Insights Education Frontiers, 30(1), 4841–4857. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.25.or828
Issue
Section
Original Article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.