Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing Decision-Making in STSE Education by Inducing Reflection and Self-Regulated Learning

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thoughtful decision-making to resolve socioscientific issues is central to science, technology, society, and environment (STSE) education. One approach for attaining this goal involves fostering students’ decision-making processes. Thus, the present study explores whether the application of decision-making strategies, combined with reflections on the decision-making processes of others, enhances decision-making competence. In addition, this study examines whether this process is supported by elements of self-regulated learning, i.e., self-reflection regarding one’s own performance and the setting of goals for subsequent tasks. A computer-based training program which involves the resolution of socioscientific issues related to sustainable development was developed in two versions: with and without elements of self-regulated learning. Its effects on decision-making competence were analyzed using a pre test-post test follow-up control-group design (N = 242 high school students). Decision-making competence was assessed using an open-ended questionnaire that focused on three facets: consideration of advantages and disadvantages, metadecision aspects, and reflection on the decision-making processes of others. The findings suggest that students in both training groups incorporated aspects of metadecision into their statements more often than students in the control group. Furthermore, both training groups were more successful in reflecting on the decision-making processes of others. The students who received additional training in self-regulated learning showed greater benefits in terms of metadecision aspects and reflection, and these effects remained significant two months later. Overall, our findings demonstrate that the application of decision-making strategies, combined with reflections on the decision-making process and elements of self-regulated learning, is a fruitful approach in STSE education.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69, 453–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvai, J. L., & Gregory, R. (2003). Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 1469–1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvai, J. L., Campbell, V. E. A., Baird, A., & Rivers, L. (2004). Teaching students to make better decisions about the environment: lessons from the decision sciences. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (1994). Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, G., Eggert, S., Goldschmidt, H., Kiesel, G., Kratsch, S., Müller, E., & Winterberg, A. (2008). Forellen züchten - Welche Standorte sind geeignet? (Cultivating trouts - which locations are suitable?) In M. Lücken & B. Schröter (Eds.), Biologie im Kontext. Aufgaben-CD-ROM (Biology in context. CD with classroom materials). Kiel: Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN).

  • 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, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bögeholz, S. (2007). Bewertungskompetenz für systematisches Entscheiden in komplexen Gestaltungssituationen Nachhaltiger Entwicklung (Decision-making competence for systematic decisions in complex issues pertaining to sustainable develop0ment). In D. Krüger & H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen forschung (Theories of research in biology education) (pp. 209–220). Berlin: Springer.

  • Bourn, D. (2005). Education for sustainable development and global citizenship. The challenge of the UN-decade. Journal of International Education Research and Development Policy, 28(3), 15–19.

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2006). Göttinger Modell der Bewertungskompetenz—Teilkompetenz “Bewerten, Entscheiden und Reflektieren” für Gestaltungsaufgaben Nachhaltiger Entwicklung (Göttingen’s model of decision-making competence - subcompetence “evaluating, deciding and reflecting” in tasks related to sustainable development). Journal of Teaching Methods of Natural Sciences, 12, 177–199.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, S., Barfod-Werner, I., & Bögeholz, S. (2008). Entscheidungen treffen—wie man vorgehen kann (Decision-making - how to proceed). Teaching Biology, 336, 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, S., Bögeholz, S., Watermann, R., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Förderung von Bewertungskompetenz im Biologieunterricht durch zusätzliche metakognitive Strukturierungshilfen beim kooperativen Lernen—Ein Beispiel für Veränderungsmessungen (The effects of metacognitive instruction on students’ socioscientific decision making - an exemplary procedure for measurement of change). Journal of Teaching Methods of Natural Sciences, 16, 299–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B., & Reiter, S. (2014). Long-term self-regulation of biology learning using standard junior high school science curriculum. Science Education, 98, 705–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2011). ESD pedagogy: a guide for the perplexed. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42, 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 209–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training decision-making strategies—an approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587–2607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herremans, I. M., & Reid, R. E. (2002). Developing awareness of the sustainability concept. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34, 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hungerford, H. R. (2010). Environmental education (EE) for the 21st century: where have we been? Where are we now? Where are we headed? The Journal of Environmental Education, 41, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, H., Pfister, H., & Fischer, K. (2005). Die Psychologie der Entscheidung (The psychology of decision-making) (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK). (2005). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [(German) education standards in biology for secondary school]. München: Wolters Kluwer Deutschland.

  • Labuhn, A. S., Bögeholz, S., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008a). Lernförderung durch Anregung der Selbstregulation im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht (Enhancing learning through stimulating self-regulation in science education). Journal of Educational Psychology, 22(1), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labuhn, A. S., Bögeholz, S., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008b). Selbstregulationsförderung in einer Biologie-Unterrichtseinheit (Fostering self-regulation in a biology teaching unit). Journal of Developmental Psychology and Educational Psychology, 40(4), 167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcinkowski, T. J. (2010). Contemporary challenges and opportunities in environmental education: where are we headed and what deserves our attention? The Journal of Environmental Education, 41, 34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse—Grundlagen und Techniken (Qualitative content analysis - foundations and techniques) (10th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, M. C. (1982). Teaching about science, technology and society at the secondary school level in the United States. An educational dilemma for the 1980s. Studies in Science Education, 9, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlenhoff, P. (2009). Umgang mit fragiler und konfligierender Evidenz im Biologieunterricht—Die Gestaltung der Unterems als Lernaufgabe (Dealing with fragile and conflicting evidence in biology education - the constitution of the River Ems as a learning task). Unpublished Master’s thesis. Göttingen.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J., Bettmann, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (1998). Behavioral decision research: an overview. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Measurement, judgment, and decision making (2nd ed., pp. 303–359). San Diego: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 219–239). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95, 601–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, G. (2010). Environmental education for the 21st century: where do we go now? The Journal of Environmental Education, 41, 22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2004). Science: the national curriculum for England. London: Department for Education and Skills / Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship - teaching socioscientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauvé, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: a further appraisal. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 7–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 11–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seethaler, S., & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1765–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). STS education - international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1978). Final report: intergovernmental conference on environmental education. Paris. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000327/032763eo.pdf

  • van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16, 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Burlington: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted with the support of the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) and its graduate research program 1195 Understanding and Enhancing Educational Fit in Schools. The authors would like to thank Christian Rolfes for his excellent technical support during the development of the web-based training program and all members of the graduate research program and the department for didactics of biology at the University of Göttingen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Biology Education, University of Münster, Schlossplatz 34, 48143, Münster, Germany

    Helge Gresch

  2. German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF), Schloßstraße 29, 60486, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Marcus Hasselhorn

  3. Biology Education, University of Göttingen, Waldweg 26, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Susanne Bögeholz

  4. DFG Graduate Research Program 1195 ‘Understanding and Enhancing Educational Fit in Schools’, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Helge Gresch, Marcus Hasselhorn & Susanne Bögeholz

Authors
  1. Helge Gresch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcus Hasselhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Bögeholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helge Gresch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M. & Bögeholz, S. Enhancing Decision-Making in STSE Education by Inducing Reflection and Self-Regulated Learning. Res Sci Educ 47, 95–118 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9491-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9491-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation