Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Conceptualizing Socioscientific Decision Making from a Review of Research in Science Education

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article proposes a theoretical framework for conceptualizing socioscientific decision making, reviews current research in this area, and intends to shed some light on the instructional design for the classroom implementation of socioscientific decision making. The framework involves 3 phases: formulate the decision-making space, posit a decision-making strategy, and reflect on the decision-making process. A total of 24 articles that specifically focused on socioscientific decision making were included. They were classified into 2 groups. The first group explored students’ socioscientific decision-making behavior and its relationships with their cognitive conditions. The second examined the effectiveness of the interventions, that is, task conditions. The analysis showed that most of the studies in both groups focused on phase 1 and studied 3 research themes: informal reasoning, evidence-based reasoning, and social interactions. The findings indicated the challenges phases 1 and 2 posed to students, such as prioritizing criteria and employing a suitable decision-making strategy. Two cognitive conditions, scientific knowledge and scientific epistemological beliefs, appeared to have a more direct impact on evidence-based reasoning rather than on informal reasoning. Group 2 studies designed various interventions and looked into divergent socioscientific decision-making performances across 3 phases. The framework helps conceptualize socioscientific decision making in a more structural and holistic way. The content review provides instructional insights for the socioscientific decision-making process and suggests several future research directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

References marked with *one asterisk and **two asterisks indicate group 1 and group 2 studies respectively included in the review.

  • Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.

  • Betsch, T., & Haberstroh, S. (2005). Current research on routine decision making: Advances and prospects. In T. Betsch & S. Haberstroh (Eds.), The routines of decision making (pp. 359–376). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyth-Marom, R., Fischhoff, B., Quadrel, M. J., & Furby, L. (1991). Teaching decision making to adolescents: A critical review. In J. Baron & R. V. Brown (Eds.), Teaching decision making to adolescents (pp. 19–59). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 479–506.

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • **Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148.

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Eggert, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230–258.

  • Eggert, S., Ostermeyer, F., Hasselhorn, M., & Bogeholz, S. (2013). Socioscientific decision making in the science classroom: The effect of embedded metacognitive instructions on students’ learning outcomes. Education Research International, 2013, 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.

  • **Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570.

  • **Grace, M., Lee, Y. C., Asshoff, R., & Wallin, A. (2015). Student decision-making about a globally familiar socioscientific issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1855–1874.

  • **Gresch, H., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Identifying non-sustainable courses of action: A prerequisite for decision-making in education for sustainable development. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 733–754.

  • **Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bogeholz, 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.

  • Hogarth, R. M. (2005). Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. In: T. Betsch & S. Haberstroh (Eds.), The routines of decision making (pp. 67-82). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, atitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131–1151.

  • *Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.

  • **Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.

  • *Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.

  • **Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787–807.

  • *Liu, S.-Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497–517.

  • McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., & Fields, D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 497–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E. A., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., & Kafouris, D. (2011). A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 711–744.

  • **Nicolaiou, C. T., Korfiatis, K., Evagorou, M., & Constantinou, C. (2009). Development of decision-making skills and environmental concern through computer-based, scaffolded learning activities. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 39–54.

  • **Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socioscientific decision-making situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600–630.

  • *Papadouris, N., & Constantinou, C. P. (2010). Approaches employed by sixth-graders to compare rival solutions in socio-scientific decision-making tasks. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 225–238.

  • Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • **Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ socioscientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues—Development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2291–2313.

  • Schommer-aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80(1), 143–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 252–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Uskola, A., Maguregi, G., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). The use of criteria in argumentation and the construction of environmental concepts: A university case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2311–2333.

  • *Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187.

  • *Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grants No. NSC-102-2811-S-003-003 and MOST 104-2511-S-003-054-MY3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Shao Hsu.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 147 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fang, SC., Hsu, YS. & Lin, SS. Conceptualizing Socioscientific Decision Making from a Review of Research in Science Education. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 427–448 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2

Keywords

Navigation