TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining and describing students’ socioscientific issues tradeoffs practices
AU - Jimenez, P. Citlally
AU - Zwickle, Adam
AU - Dauer, Jenny M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Decision making about complex socioscientific issues (SSI) involves recognizing and weighing tradeoffs among conflicting values and stakeholder outcomes. A vital but difficult practice, engaging in tradeoffs allows decision-makers to engage in perspective-taking, and also identify that not all their desired goals may be fulfilled by a policy. However, the science education field has not clearly defined tradeoffs practices or operationalized instruction about tradeoffs. Our primary goal was to define features of a tradeoff practice supported by a literature review and explore undergraduates’ tradeoff practices within an interdisciplinary science literacy course focused on SSI decision making. As a result of our analysis, we propose three important features of tradeoff reasoning: internal consistency, multiple perspectives, and alternatives comparison strategies, which represent a broader understanding of specific goals students can achieve and educators can assess. Our work more holistically defines student tradeoff practices across the entire decision-making process and lays a theoretical foundation for researching students’ tradeoffs practices in an SSI-context. Our study may aid educators in identifying how students consider tradeoffs when decision making about complex SSI and recognizing challenges to refine educational programming aimed at enhancing students’ decision-making skills to support science literacy.
AB - Decision making about complex socioscientific issues (SSI) involves recognizing and weighing tradeoffs among conflicting values and stakeholder outcomes. A vital but difficult practice, engaging in tradeoffs allows decision-makers to engage in perspective-taking, and also identify that not all their desired goals may be fulfilled by a policy. However, the science education field has not clearly defined tradeoffs practices or operationalized instruction about tradeoffs. Our primary goal was to define features of a tradeoff practice supported by a literature review and explore undergraduates’ tradeoff practices within an interdisciplinary science literacy course focused on SSI decision making. As a result of our analysis, we propose three important features of tradeoff reasoning: internal consistency, multiple perspectives, and alternatives comparison strategies, which represent a broader understanding of specific goals students can achieve and educators can assess. Our work more holistically defines student tradeoff practices across the entire decision-making process and lays a theoretical foundation for researching students’ tradeoffs practices in an SSI-context. Our study may aid educators in identifying how students consider tradeoffs when decision making about complex SSI and recognizing challenges to refine educational programming aimed at enhancing students’ decision-making skills to support science literacy.
KW - Tradeoffs
KW - decision making
KW - science literacy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85176913859&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85176913859&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/21548455.2023.2263608
DO - 10.1080/21548455.2023.2263608
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85176913859
SN - 2154-8455
VL - 14
SP - 277
EP - 293
JO - International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement
JF - International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement
IS - 3
ER -