JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A Literature Review of Studies on Decision-making in Socio-scientific Issues
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
A Literature Review of Studies on Decision-making in Socio-scientific Issues
Jho, Hunkoog;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study aims to investigate the definition of and factors in decision on socio-scientific issues and to analyze the standards for the quality of decision-making, based on the review of studies in socio-scientific issues. This study analyzed 147 articles published in journals of the social science citation index, and the research method was followed by taxonomy analysis and analytic induction. The results showed that many of the studies did not explicitly articulate the decision-making and only dealt with a specific element of the process, not as a whole. Decision-making was categorized into the steps of identification, option, criteria, information, survey, choice, and review. In terms of the factors, the literature tackled diverse things: science knowledge, nature of science, type of issue, discussion type, belief & values, and culture. This study examined the relationship between the factors and each element of decision-making. Among the relationships, only six kinds were shown as relevant and most of factors were connected to survey. With regard to the standards, the literature relied upon balance, justification and multiplicity since many of the studies made use of Toulmin-based argumentation. This study gives some implications for standards for decision-making regarding the nature of risk and uncertainty.
 Keywords
decision-making;socio-scientific issue;literature review;risk;uncertainty;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Abdellaoui, M., & Hey, J. D. (2008). Advances in decision making under risk and uncertainty. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

2.
Abi-El-Monda, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605. crossref(new window)

3.
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. crossref(new window)

4.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475. crossref(new window)

5.
Albe, V. (2008a). Students' positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 805-827. crossref(new window)

6.
Albe, V. (2008b). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research In Science Education, 38, 67-90. crossref(new window)

7.
Alsop, S. (1999). Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 267-284. crossref(new window)

8.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.

9.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London, U.K.: Sage Publications, Inc.

10.
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. crossref(new window)

11.
Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L.(2012). Students' research-informed socio-scientific activism: re/vision for a sustainable future. Research In Science Education, 42, 129-148. crossref(new window)

12.
Bermudez, J. L. (2009). Decision theory and rationality. New York: Oxford University Press.

13.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision-making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185-201. crossref(new window)

14.
Blades, D. (2012). Power and socioscientific issues: the pedagogy of Mire's critique of skin whitening cosmeceuticals. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(3), 292-301.

15.
Bodzin, A. (2012). Investigating urban eighth-grade students' knowledge of energy resources. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1255-1275. crossref(new window)

16.
Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in Science Education: A Model-based Framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103-140. crossref(new window)

17.
Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issue. Research In Science Education, 43, 479-506. crossref(new window)

18.
Brandstatter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: making choices without trade-offs. Psychological review, 113(2), 409-432. crossref(new window)

19.
Castano, C. (2008). Socio-scientific discussions as a way to improve the comprehension of science and the understanding of the interrelation between species and the environment. Research in Science Education, 38, 565-587. crossref(new window)

20.
Chang, S.-N., & Chiu, M.-H. (2008). Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773. crossref(new window)

21.
Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.-N. C., & Hoglund, 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, 342-352. crossref(new window)

22.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277. crossref(new window)

23.
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, 133-148. crossref(new window)

24.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. crossref(new window)

25.
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M.-P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

26.
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, 230-258.

27.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological review, 92(4), 433-461. crossref(new window)

28.
Ekborg, M. (2008). Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: the case of genetically modified plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 60-65. crossref(new window)

29.
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669. crossref(new window)

30.
Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S.(2005). The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 381-394). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

31.
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. crossref(new window)

32.
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. crossref(new window)

33.
Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698. crossref(new window)

34.
Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677-687. crossref(new window)

35.
Foong, C.-C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2013). Students' argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355. crossref(new window)

36.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296. crossref(new window)

37.
Frewer, L. J. (1999). Public risk perceptions and risk communication. In P. Bennett, & K. Calman (Eds.), Risk communication and public health (pp. 20-32). New York: Oxford University Press.

38.
Gilboa, I. (2009). Theory of decision under uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.

39.
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. crossref(new window)

40.
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(11), 1157-1169. crossref(new window)

41.
Gresch, H., & Bogeholz, S. (2013). Identifying non-sustainable courses of action: a prerequisite for decision-making in education for sustainable development. Research In Science Education, 43, 733-754. crossref(new window)

42.
Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bogeholz, S. (2013). Training in decisionmaking strategies: an approach to enhance students' competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587-2607. crossref(new window)

43.
Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1249-1268. crossref(new window)

44.
Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Rosberg, M. (2011). Students' socio-scientific reasoning in an astrobiological context during work with a digital learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 388-402. crossref(new window)

45.
Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk: what can be learned from schools involved in a 'collapsed day' project? Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 439-453. crossref(new window)

46.
Hermann, N., & Menzel, S. (2013). Threat perception and attitudes of adolescent towards re-introduced wild animals: a qualitative study of young learners from affected regions in Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3062-3094. crossref(new window)

47.
Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

48.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368. crossref(new window)

49.
Hong, J.-L., & Chang, N.-K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school students' decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research In Science Education, 34, 97-111. crossref(new window)

50.
Hong, Z.-R., Lin, H.-S., Wang, H.-H., Chen, H.-T., & Yang, K.-K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students' attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648. crossref(new window)

51.
Ideland, M., Malmberg, C., & Winberg, M. (2011). Culturally equipped for socio-scientific issues? a comparative study on how teachers and students in mono- and multiethnic schools handle work with complex issues. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1835-1859. crossref(new window)

52.
Jho, H. (2012). Factors in decision-making on socio-scientific issues based on the analysis of internet debate and classroom discussions. Seoul National University, Korea.

53.
Jho, H., Yoon, H.-G., & Kim, M. (2013). The role of science knowledge in decision process on the issue of nuclear power plant. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association, Nicosia, Cyprus, Sep. 5

54.
Jho, H., Yoon, H.-G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude 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. crossref(new window)

55.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190. crossref(new window)

56.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. crossref(new window)

57.
Kang, S.-A. (2013). Decision making under uncertainty. Seoul, Korea: Dunam.

58.
Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67-100. crossref(new window)

59.
Kilinc, A., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Exploring students' ideas about risks and benefits of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 252-266. crossref(new window)

60.
Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D.(2014). Decision making through dialogue: a case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research In Science Education, 44, 903-926. crossref(new window)

61.
Knight, F. H. (2006). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

62.
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for ctizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. crossref(new window)

63.
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. crossref(new window)

64.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689. crossref(new window)

65.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74-103.

66.
LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch,R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.

67.
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: analysis of pre-service science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953. crossref(new window)

68.
Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., et al. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. crossref(new window)

69.
Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999-2020.

70.
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: across-context comparison. Science Education, 96, 787-807. crossref(new window)

71.
Levinson, R., Kent, P., Pratt, D., Kapadia, R., & Yogui, C. (2012). Risk-based decision making in a scientific issue: a study of teachers discussing a dilemma through a microworld. Science Education, 96, 212-233. crossref(new window)

72.
Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issue: the role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287. crossref(new window)

73.
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. crossref(new window)

74.
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.

75.
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(2), 139-178. crossref(new window)

76.
Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: the influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235-2251. crossref(new window)

77.
Nielsen, J. A. (2012a). Arguing from nature: the role of 'nature' in students' argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 723-744. crossref(new window)

78.
Nielsen, J. A. (2012b). Science in discussions: an analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428-456. crossref(new window)

79.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106. crossref(new window)

80.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1998). Instrument design: a framework for assessing scientific literacy. Arnhem, The Netherlands.: Programme for International Student Assessment.

81.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. crossref(new window)

82.
Patronis, T., & 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. crossref(new window)

83.
Pratt, D., Ainley, J., Kent, P., Levinson, R., Yogui, C., & Kapadia, R. (2011). Role of context in risk-based reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(4), 322-345. crossref(new window)

84.
Rapoport, A. (1989). Decision theory and decision behaviour: normative and descriptive approaches. AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

85.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182. crossref(new window)

86.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

87.
Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2010). Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socio-scientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 203-226.

88.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. crossref(new window)

89.
Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 68-72. crossref(new window)

90.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualization of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. crossref(new window)

91.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. crossref(new window)

92.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. crossref(new window)

93.
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(1), 112-138. crossref(new window)

94.
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(1), 71-93. crossref(new window)

95.
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.

96.
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(14), 1765-1785. crossref(new window)

97.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927. crossref(new window)

98.
Simonneaux, L., Panissal, L., & Brossais, E. (2013). Students' perception of risk about nanotechnology after an SAQ teaching strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2376-2406. crossref(new window)

99.
Song, J. (1999). Between the beginning of the 19th century and the middle of the 20th century = the process of the quickening and development of Science-Technology-Society education in the United Kingdom (I). Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 19(3), 409-427.